Conklin v. StateConklin v. State
Memorandum. Generally, a lessee is entitled to recover the value of fixtures placed by him on the condemned property, when he is entitled to remove them at the expiration of the lease
(Marraro v State of New York,
The scope of our review here is limited to the determination that there is evidence in the record supporting the finding by the Appellate Division that claimant failed to establish his ownership of the property. (See Cohen and Karger, Powers of the New York Court of Appeals [rev ed], § 108, p 452.) Accordingly, the order of the Appellate Division is affirmed, without costs.
Chief Judge Breitel and Judges Jasen, Gabrielli, Jones, Wachtler, Fuchsberg and Cooke concur in memorandum.
Order affirmed.