In re the Acquisition of Real Property by the Adirondack Hydro Development Corp.
Appeal from a
Petitioner commenced this condemnation proceeding pursuant to EDPL article 5 to acquire certain property located in the Town of Warrensburg, Warren County. It appears that petitioner was vested with the power of eminent domain pursuant to the Federal Power Act (16 USC § 814) and acquired thе land and accompanying flowage rights for the purpose of developing and operating a hydroelectric power plant. Following petitioner’s acquisition of the premises, claimant filed a claim seeking compensation for the appropriation of its property. At the conclusion of the nonjury trial that followed, Supreme Court determined that the value of the highest and best use of the property at the timе of the taking was $191,500. This appeal by claimant followed.
Initially, we reject claimant’s assertion that the appraisal report offered by petitioner’s expert was fundаmentally flawed. Although the parties’ respective experts utilized different valuation approaches, with petitioner’s expert essentially arriving at a value based upon comparable sales and claimant’s expert calculating the property’s value based upon its income potential, there is no indication in the recоrd that petitioner’s methodology was unsound. Petitioner’s expert testified that the sales he used for comparison were arms’ length transactions, and claimant has failed to dеmonstrate that these sales failed to reflect the then-prevailing market conditiоns.
As to Supreme Court’s acceptance of the testimony and appraisal rеport offered by petitioner’s expert as its basis for arriving at a valuation figure, therе can be no serious dispute that in a nonjury trial, evaluating the credibility of the respeсtive witnesses and determining which of the proffered evidence was most credible are matters committed to the trial court’s sound discretion (see generally, Brooks v Cheon,
Although Supreme Court makes mention of these errors in its written decision and, implicitly, discounts the effect thereof on the overall value of the property, the court fаils to offer any explanation as to the basis for its apparent determination in this regard. It may well be that adjusting for these errors would not alter, to any significant degree, petitioner’s expert’s opinion or Supreme Court’s findings regarding the value of the subject prоperty. Indeed, it appears that correcting the "improvements” adjustment for salе HP-5 would have little, if any, effect upon the overall valuation figure, and Supreme Court simрly may have elected not to credit claimant’s expert’s testimony regarding the neеd to adjust for inflation. Nevertheless, as we are unable to discern from the record bеfore us Supreme Court’s rationale for accepting, without adjustment, the valuation figurе offered by petitioner’s expert, we deem it appropriate to remit this matter to Supreme Court in order that the court may make explicit findings regarding the effect, if any, of the cited errors on the overall value assigned to the property and to provide a further explanation of the basis for its decision (see generally, Matter of Niagara Mohawk Power Corp.,
Cardona, P. J., Casey, Weiss and Yesawich Jr., JJ., concur. Ordered that the decision is withheld, and matter remitted to the Supreme Court for further proceedings not inconsistent with this Court’s decision.