APPROPRIATION OF RIPARIAN RIGHTS NECESSITATING RELOCATION OF BUSINESS WARRANTS RECOVERY FOR RELOCATION COSTS PLUS REPLACEMENT COSTS FOR THE MACHINERY USED AT THE PRIOR LOCATION

CLAIMANTS OPERATED ADJACENT BUSINESSES IN CONCRETE AND CRUSHED STONE LOCATED ON THE CHENANGO RIVER NEAR THE CITY OF BINGHAMTON. THE STATE APPROPRIATED A PORTION OF THE BED OF THE CHENANGO RIVER AND PLACED EXTENSIVE FILL ALONG THIS AREA TO FACILITATE THE CONSTRUCTION OF A NEW INTERSTATE HIGHWAY. THIS SEPARATED CLAIMANTS FROM THE RIVER AND DESTROYED THEIR EXISTING RIPARIAN RIGHTS. THE ISSUE IS THE AMOUNT OF COMPENSATION AWARDED AND DAMAGE SUFFERED BY CLAIMANTS. THE CASE INDICATES THE EXTREME DISPARITY IN RESULT WHICH CAN OCCUR WHEN DIFFERENT INITIAL THEORIES OF DAMAGES ARE ADOPTED. THE MAJORITY HELD THAT THE CLAIMANTS' DAMAGE WAS OCCASIONED BY APPROPRIATION OF THE RIPARIAN RIGHTS AND THE CONSEQUENT RELOCATION AND DIMINISHED VALUE OF THE PROPERTY WERE THEREFORE COMPENSABLE DAMAGES. THE DISSENT CONCLUDED THAT COMPUTATION OF THE CLAIMANTS' LOSSES SHOULD BE CONFINED TO THE PROPERTY AND PARTIES INVOLVED AND RELOCATION VALUE SHOULD GIVE WAY TO THE ALTERED HIGHEST AND BEST USE OF THE PROPERTY. IT IS SUGGESTED THAT THE SOLUTION LIES SOMEWHERE BETWEEN. RELOCATION IS A PROPER SUBJECT FOR DAMAGES SINCE IT WAS DIRECTLY AND SOLELY CAUSED BY THE APPROPRIATION OF THE RIPARIAN RIGHTS. HOWEVER, THIS DOES NOT WARRANT IGNORING THE FACT THAT THE APPROPRIATION HAS CONFERRED AN ECONOMIC BENEFIT ON THE PROPERTY WHICH THE STATE HAS A RIGHT TO HAVE OFFSET AGAINST ANY LOSSES CAUSED BY THE APPROPRIATION. VALUATION OF THE IMPROVEMENTS SHOULD CORRESPOND TO THE REALITIES OF THEIR ACTUAL USE. (ROSE V. STATE, 289 N. Y. S. 2D 553 (SUP. CT. APP.DIV. 1968)).

  • Supplemental Notes:
    • No 92, pp 1-3,
  • Publication Date: 1969-2

Media Info

Subject/Index Terms

Filing Info

  • Accession Number: 00238664
  • Record Type: Publication
  • Files: TRIS
  • Created Date: May 5 1994 12:00AM