Appeal from the Order of the Court of Common Pleas of Philadelphia County in case of Harry A. Cohen and Eva Cohen v. Redevelopment Authority of the City of Philadelphia, No. 198 September Term, 1964.
James L. Price, with him Steinberg, Greenstein, Richman & Price, for appellants.
Francis J. Moran, with him James D. Crawford and Richard D. Malmed, for appellee.
Judges Kramer, Rogers and Blatt, sitting as a panel of three. Opinion by Judge Blatt.
[ 12 Pa. Commw. Page 126]
Harry A. and Eva Cohen (appellants) were owners of the premises at 104 N. 6th Street, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, condemned by the Redevelopment Authority of the City of Philadelphia (Authority) for the Independence Mall Redevelopment project, and Harry A. Cohen operated a business on the property. The Declaration of Taking was filed in the Court of Common Pleas on September 23, 1964 pursuant to the Eminent Domain Code, Act of June 22, 1964, Special Sess., P.L. 84, as amended, 26 P.S. §§ 1-101 et seq. A Board of View was subsequently appointed and it recommended an award of $36,500, which was appealed to the court below, where a jury awarded a $32,000 verdict for the appellants. The lower court denied the appellant's motion for a new trial and judgment was entered on the verdict.
The appellants raise several questions in support of their contention that a new trial should be granted:
(a) the lower court erred in excluding evidence concerning the value of equipment and fixtures required to be removed;
(b) that the lower court erred in excluding evidence concerning the loss arising from the dislocation of the business;
[ 12 Pa. Commw. Page 127]
(c) that the lower court erred in excluding evidence concerning the loss incurred from the now worthless advertising materials which bore the address of the condemned property;
(d) that the judge improperly commented to the jury in his charge that the condemnee did not consider the essential factor of depreciation in his testimony; and
(e) that the counsel for the Authority in his address to the jury commented on the appellants' failure to produce an expert witness and suggested ...