New York Law Review

Tag: Highway Relocation

  • La Briola v. State of New York, 36 N.Y.2d 328 (1975): Consequential Damages and Highway Relocation

    36 N.Y.2d 328 (1975)

    An owner is not entitled to consequential damages for loss of property value resulting from highway relocation and traffic diversion if suitable access remains for the property’s next best use, even if its prior highest and best use, contingent on highway contiguity, is eliminated.

    Summary

    La Briola owned land zoned for retail business with frontage on Route 22. The State relocated the highway, taking a small portion of La Briola’s land but eliminating direct highway access. The property’s highest and best use was reduced to light industrial due to the highway relocation and traffic diversion. The Court of Claims awarded damages only for the land taken, but the Appellate Division added consequential damages for the unsuitable access. The Court of Appeals reversed, holding that the State could relocate the highway without compensating for lost frontage or traffic, provided suitable access remained for the property’s new highest and best use. The access was deemed sufficient for light industrial use, so no additional compensation was required.

    Facts

    La Briola owned 23.565 acres with 1,100 feet of frontage on Route 22, zoned for retail business (front 300 feet), light industrial (middle), and residential (rear). The property was used as a nursery. In 1967, the State relocated Route 22 approximately 150 feet south, constructing a chain-link fence along 941 feet of the old roadbed in front of La Briola’s property. A 165-foot section of the old road remained, with a new access ramp connecting it to the relocated Route 22. After the relocation, the property retained some frontage on the old road and had access to the new highway, but the highest and best use was reduced to light industrial.

    Procedural History

    La Briola filed a claim in the Court of Claims seeking compensation for the taking and consequential damages. The Court of Claims awarded $50,859 for the land taken. The Appellate Division modified the judgment, awarding an additional $236,015 in consequential damages. The State appealed to the Court of Appeals.

    Issue(s)

    Whether the diminution in the economic value of the remaining property was caused by a compensable loss of suitable access or by a non-compensable diversion of highway traffic due to highway relocation?

    Holding

    No, the diminution was caused by the non-compensable highway relocation and diversion of traffic, because the State left suitable ingress and egress for the property’s new highest and best use (light industrial).

    Court’s Reasoning

    The court emphasized that an owner has no vested right to the continuance of a highway or its traffic. The State can discontinue a highway and divert traffic without compensating abutting property owners for diminished value, as long as suitable access remains. “The highway and its traffic rise from a function of the State and are not a product or utility of the property.” The court distinguished this case from *Priestly v. State of New York*, 23 N.Y.2d 152 (1968), where consequential damages were awarded because the access after the taking was unsuitable for the property’s prior highest and best use. In this case, the reduction in highest and best use was due to the highway relocation, not the loss of suitable access for the property’s *new* highest and best use (light industrial). “In the case of highway relocation…the pertinent highest use in assessing suitability of access is that which survives the highway relocation.” Because the access was suitable for light industrial use, no consequential damages were owed. The court also cited *Bopp v. State of New York*, 19 N.Y.2d 368 (1967), where the loss of property value from highway relocation and traffic diversion was deemed non-compensable. The dissent argued that the elimination of normal access rendered the property unsuitable for its former highest and best use, entitling the owner to consequential damages, citing *Priestly*. The dissent emphasized that the Appellate Division found that the change in highest and best use was due to the remaining access being unsuitable, not simply the diversion of traffic.

  • Bopp v. State, 19 N.Y.2d 368 (1967): Compensation for Diminished Access to State Highway

    Bopp v. State, 19 N.Y.2d 368 (1967)

    A property owner is not entitled to damages for diminished property value resulting from rerouting of a state highway, provided reasonably adequate access to the new highway is maintained.

    Summary

    Bopp owned a motel and restaurant on a state highway. The state reconstructed the highway, appropriating a small portion of Bopp’s land and rerouting the highway so it no longer directly accessed Bopp’s property, requiring use of a spur road. Bopp claimed damages for the reduced property value. The Court of Appeals held that while Bopp was entitled to compensation for the land taken, consequential damages due to rerouting and diminished traffic are not compensable, so long as reasonably adequate access to the highway is maintained. The court affirmed the Appellate Division’s reduced award, emphasizing that property owners have no inherent right to direct highway access or traffic flow.

    Facts

    John and Mary Bopp owned a motel, lodge, and restaurant on State Route 28, strategically located opposite the road to the Belleayre recreational area. In 1959, the State reconstructed Route 28, appropriating 0.044 acres of Bopp’s land and severing the old route near their property. The State constructed a “G-spur connection” to the new Route 28, west of the property. The new Route 28 was not on the same grade as the property and was barely visible from it, requiring a sharp turn off the new route to reach the property, now 700-800 feet away. After the reconstruction, the motel-lodge and restaurant were no longer profitable and were used as a summer residence except during the ski season. The old Route 28 was the same width as the G-spur, but the highway traffic shifted away from Bopp’s property.

    Procedural History

    Bopp sued in the Court of Claims, which awarded $15,000 for damages resulting from the inadequate access road, reducing the property’s highest and best use. The Appellate Division modified the judgment, reducing the award to $4,175 (for the land actually taken) based on cases establishing that damages from circuity of access and loss of traffic are not compensable. Bopp appealed to the New York Court of Appeals.

    Issue(s)

    Whether a property owner is entitled to compensation for the decrease in property value resulting from the State’s reconstruction of a highway that diverts traffic away from the property, when the owner retains reasonably adequate access to the new highway via an access road.

    Holding

    No, because the State’s obligation to the property owner is fulfilled if they have a reasonably adequate means of access to and from the new highway, regardless of any decrease in traffic or visibility.

    Court’s Reasoning

    The Court of Appeals affirmed the Appellate Division’s decision, stating that a property owner is not entitled to damages because access is no longer as direct as it once was, or because the access is less than ideal. The court emphasized that damages are not recoverable simply because traffic no longer passes in front of the claimant’s property or because the property is no longer visible from the main highway, citing Selig v. State of New York. The court reasoned that property owners have no inherent right to be located directly on a state highway or to have traffic pass in front of their property; any increase in value due to those factors is purely fortuitous. The State’s obligation is met if reasonably adequate access to the new highway is provided. The court found that the access road provided was adequate because the Court of Claims found the property could still be operated as a residence and a motel for specifically directed guests. The court analogized the situation to the state closing a recreation center, which would affect the claimant’s property just as drastically as the construction of the new highway, for which the State would not be liable. The court stated, “The State’s obligation to them is fulfilled if they have a reasonably adequate means of access to and from the new highway.”