Law.com Subscribers SAVE 30%
Call 855-808-4530 or email [email protected] to receive your discount on a new subscription.
Compensation for Condemnation of Temporary Easements
When the state condemns a temporary easement that encumbers the frontage of a vacant parcel, but uses the easement for only a fraction of the easement's total duration, how should the landowner's compensation be computed? In McCurdy v. State (NYLJ 3/21/08, p. 27, col. 3), the Court of Appeals concluded that landowner was entitled to consequential damages for harm to the interior land not encumbered by the easement, but only for the period when the state's use of the easement obstructed landowner's access to the interior of the parcel. The court's opinion, however, did not foreclose the possibility of more generous compensation in a future case.
The McCurdy Facts
In 1980, McCurdy purchased a vacant quarter-acre parcel fronting on the Montauk Highway in the Town of Islip. McCurdy operated a dental office on an adjacent parcel, which he did not own. In 1999, the state set out to reconstruct the highway, and appropriated a 71-square-foot slice of McCurdy's land. The parties do not dispute that the value of this slice was $850. At the same time, however, the state appropriated a temporary easement over a larger, 679-square-foot slice of McCurdy's land. The temporary easement was designed to facilitate grading during reconstruction of the road, and was to terminate upon completion of the highway work. The temporary easement ultimately terminated on Feb. 1, 2001, nearly two years after the condemnation had become effective.
This premium content is locked for Entertainment Law & Finance subscribers only
ENJOY UNLIMITED ACCESS TO THE SINGLE SOURCE OF OBJECTIVE LEGAL ANALYSIS, PRACTICAL INSIGHTS, AND NEWS IN ENTERTAINMENT LAW.
- Stay current on the latest information, rulings, regulations, and trends
- Includes practical, must-have information on copyrights, royalties, AI, and more
- Tap into expert guidance from top entertainment lawyers and experts
Already a have an account? Sign In Now Log In Now
For enterprise-wide or corporate acess, please contact Customer Service at [email protected] or 877-256-2473
Major Differences In UK, U.S. Copyright Laws
This article highlights how copyright law in the United Kingdom differs from U.S. copyright law, and points out differences that may be crucial to entertainment and media businesses familiar with U.S law that are interested in operating in the United Kingdom or under UK law. The article also briefly addresses contrasts in UK and U.S. trademark law.
The Article 8 Opt In
The Article 8 opt-in election adds an additional layer of complexity to the already labyrinthine rules governing perfection of security interests under the UCC. A lender that is unaware of the nuances created by the opt in (may find its security interest vulnerable to being primed by another party that has taken steps to perfect in a superior manner under the circumstances.
Strategy vs. Tactics: Two Sides of a Difficult Coin
With each successive large-scale cyber attack, it is slowly becoming clear that ransomware attacks are targeting the critical infrastructure of the most powerful country on the planet. Understanding the strategy, and tactics of our opponents, as well as the strategy and the tactics we implement as a response are vital to victory.
Legal Possession: What Does It Mean?
Possession of real property is a matter of physical fact. Having the right or legal entitlement to possession is not "possession," possession is "the fact of having or holding property in one's power." That power means having physical dominion and control over the property.
The Stranger to the Deed Rule
In 1987, a unanimous Court of Appeals reaffirmed the vitality of the "stranger to the deed" rule, which holds that if a grantor executes a deed to a grantee purporting to create an easement in a third party, the easement is invalid. Daniello v. Wagner, decided by the Second Department on November 29th, makes it clear that not all grantors (or their lawyers) have received the Court of Appeals' message, suggesting that the rule needs re-examination.