LaBriola v. State, 36 N.Y.2d 328 (1975)
When a partial taking results in access to the remaining property that is not merely circuitous but also unsuitable for its highest and best use, the property owner is entitled to consequential damages.
Summary
This case concerns the issue of consequential damages in a partial taking case where the State appropriated land for highway and bridge approach purposes. The claimants argued that the remaining access to their property was unsuitable for its highest and best use (residential development) due to its circuitous nature after the taking. The Court of Appeals reversed the Appellate Division’s decision, holding that the remaining access was not merely circuitous, but also unsuitable for the property’s highest and best use, thus entitling the claimants to consequential damages. The court emphasized that suitability of access is a factual question directly related to the highest and best use of the property.
Facts
The State took approximately 2.8 acres of the claimants’ 80-acre property for the Thousand Island Bridge approach. This taking included frontage on the bridge approach, without providing access. The property’s remaining access was via a road west of the bridge approach, intersecting with a road running under the bridge to the northern part of the property. Both parties stipulated legal and physical access existed before and after the taking. The claimants argued the remaining access was inadequate for commercial and residential development (the claimed highest and best use), resulting in consequential damages.
Procedural History
The Court of Claims awarded direct and consequential damages. The Appellate Division upheld the direct damages but reversed the award of consequential damages, citing circuitous access. The claimants appealed to the Court of Appeals.
Issue(s)
Whether the remaining access to the claimant’s property after the partial taking was merely circuitous, and therefore non-compensable, or unsuitable for the property’s highest and best use, thus entitling the claimants to consequential damages.
Holding
Yes, because the remaining access, while circuitous, was also unsuitable for the established highest and best use of residential development, entitling the claimants to consequential damages.
Court’s Reasoning
The court distinguished between “circuitous” and “unsuitable” access. While mere circuity of access is not compensable, access that is “unsuitable” due to inadequacy for the property’s highest and best use warrants consequential damages. The court defined