Appeal from the Judgment and Order of the Court of Common Pleas of Lancaster County in case of Hyman Mishkin v. The Redevelopment Authority of the City of Lancaster, No. 3 January Term, 1970.
Daniel H. Shertzer, for appellant.
James F. Heinley, with him Necomer, Roda & Morgan, for appellee.
Judges Kramer, Wilkinson, Jr., and Blatt, sitting as a panel of three. Opinion by Judge Blatt.
The appellant, a real estate broker and builder, was the owner of a two and one-half story frame house in the City of Lancaster, for which a Declaration of Taking was filed by the Redevelopment Authority of the City of Lancaster (Authority) in the Common Pleas Court of Lancaster County on December 17, 1969. A Board of Viewers was subsequently appointed, a view was made and a report was filed recommending an award of $1,665.83. The appellant appealed from this report and award, and, after a jury trial, there was a verdict for the appellant in the amount of $1,000.00. The appellant's motion for a new trial was refused, judgment was entered on the verdict, and it is from the refusal of the court below to grant a new trial that this appeal has been brought.
From the testimony given before the jury, it appeared that the condemned property was then uninhabitable and that no tenant had lived there since 1967. It also appeared that the appellant had purchased the property in 1963 for $2,200.00 and had made some improvements. He testified that he had attempted to begin rehabilitating the property prior to the condemnation, and that the property was worth $4,000.00 as rehabilitated. Because of damage caused by vandals, however, he estimated the current value to be $3,700.00. The Authority's expert witness testified that the property had a value of only $700.00, which was merely the value of the land, and it was his opinion that the condition of the building as well as the condition of the surrounding neighborhood were such that rehabilitation would be economically inadvisable, costing from $2,000.00 to $2,500.00, and yet expected to produce gross rental income of only $720.00 per year. In rebuttal, the appellant testified that the net rental income, following rehabilitation and after taxes and expenses,
would be approximately $500.00 per year. The court did not permit the appellant to testify in rebuttal as to the cost of rehabilitation, holding that such testimony should have been presented during the appellant's case in chief.
In asking that this Court reverse the lower court and grant him a new trial, the appellant carries a heavy burden. "The grant or refusal of a new trial will not be reversed on appeal absent a clear abuse of discretion or an error of law which controlled the outcome of the case." Murphy v. City of Philadelphia, 420 Pa. 490, 491, 218 A.2d 323, 324 (1966); Firestone v. Schmehl, 420 Pa. 644, 218 A.2d 324 (1966).
In attempting to meet his burden, the appellant argues initially that the jury's verdict was unrealistic, inadequate against the weight of the evidence, and, therefore, should not have been sustained. On this point, the Supreme Court has noted in Burrell v. Philadelphia Electric Co., 438 Pa. 286, 289, 265 A.2d 516, 518 (1970), that: "A new trial should be awarded on the ground that the verdict is against the weight of the evidence only when the jury's verdict is so contrary to the evidence as to shock one's sense of justice. . . ." In this case, the jury was faced with widely varying testimony as to the value of the property concerned. It also received evidence that the appellant had earlier testified before the Board of Viewers as to still another valuation of his property, i.e., $3,000.00. Such discrepancy in testimony could understandably call the credibility of the appellant into question, and it was clearly the jury's duty to weigh the conflicting testimony and to decide the appropriate valuation. We cannot now say that its decision was unreasonable or that it is shocking to our sense of justice. Nor can we agree with the appellant in his attack upon the jury's award because it was 40% less than the award of the Board
of Viewers. The fact that there was this much difference between the Board of Viewers' award and the jury's award is an important factor to be considered when a new trial is requested, but it is not necessarily controlling. Boring v. Metropolitan Edison Company, 435 Pa. 513, 257 A.2d 565 (1969); Redevelopment Authority v. Yee Kai Teung, 5 Pa. Commonwealth Ct. 65, 289 A.2d 498 (1972). Given the conflicting testimony, not only as between the appellant and the Authority, but even as between ...