New York Law Review

Tag: City of New York v. Exxon Corp.

  • City of New York v. Exxon Corp., 39 N.Y.2d 430 (1976): Measure of Damages in Partial Takings Cases

    City of New York v. Exxon Corp., 39 N.Y.2d 430 (1976)

    In a partial taking case involving income-producing property, the measure of damages is the difference between the property’s value before and after the taking, and additional compensation for the taken portion and improvements constitutes double compensation unless the reduced rental income does not reflect the loss of the condemned portion; restoration costs are compensable if not reflected in reduced rental.

    Summary

    This case addresses the proper valuation method in a partial taking of income-producing property (a gas station). The City of New York condemned a portion of the property, leading to reduced rental income. The Court of Appeals held that the owner was entitled to the difference between the property’s value before and after the taking, based on capitalized income. Additional compensation for the land and improvements taken was deemed double compensation because the reduced rental already reflected this loss. However, the court upheld compensation for restoration costs necessary to return the station to working condition, as these costs were not reflected in the reduced rental income.

    Facts

    Exxon (formerly Humble Oil) owned a gas station property in New York City. The City condemned a portion of the property, reducing its size and the size of the service station building. As a result, the tenant requested and received a reduction in rent, reflecting the diminished size of the property and building.

    Procedural History

    The Supreme Court awarded compensation to Exxon, including amounts for the land and improvements taken, restoration costs, and relocation of fixtures. The Appellate Division affirmed the award. The City appealed, arguing excessive compensation. Humble also appealed, arguing its award for relocating fixtures was insufficient.

    Issue(s)

    1. Whether the property owner is entitled to additional compensation for the value of the land and improvements taken when the reduced rental income already reflects the loss of the condemned portion of the property?

    2. Whether the property owner is entitled to compensation for restoration costs of the remaining parcel after a partial taking?

    3. Whether the award to Humble Oil for relocating fixtures was properly calculated?

    Holding

    1. No, because additional payments for these items would constitute double compensation where the reduced rental rate already considers the loss of the condemned portion.

    2. Yes, because the affirmed finding of fact showed these expenditures were necessary to restore the station to working condition and this was not reflected in the reduced rental.

    3. Yes, the order of the Appellate Division should be modified by increasing Humble’s award to $10,700, the amount fixed by the Supreme Court, because the record supports the contention that no portion of the $10,700 awarded for relocating the fixtures was attributed to the purchase of new equipment.

    Court’s Reasoning

    The Court of Appeals reasoned that the proper measure of damages in a partial taking is the difference between the value of the whole parcel before the taking and the value of the remainder after the taking (citing Diocese of Buffalo v State of New York, 24 NY2d 320, 323). For income-producing property, capitalization of income is a valid method of valuation (citing Ettlinger v Weil, 184 NY 179, 183; Humble Oil & Refining Co. v State of New York, 12 NY2d 861).

    The court found that because the rent was adjusted to reflect the reduced size of the property, the loss of the condemned portion was already reflected in the reduced rental figure used to calculate the $90,000 award. Therefore, additional payments for the taken land and improvements would constitute double compensation.

    However, the court upheld the $12,000 award for restoration costs, finding that these expenditures were necessary to restore the station to working condition and were not factored into the reduced rental income. This constituted an additional loss to the owners.

    Regarding Humble’s appeal, the court agreed that no portion of the award for relocating fixtures was attributed to new equipment, so the full amount fixed by the Supreme Court ($10,700) should be awarded.