Appeal from the Order of the Court of Common Pleas of Washington County in case of In Re: Condemnation of Lands and Property of Ernest G. Alexas-Bestyet, Inc., No. 140 January Term, 1973.
Phillip J. Binotto, Jr., with him Gaylord W. Greenlee, and Greenlee, Richman, Derrico & Posa, for appellant.
Frank A. Conte, for appellee.
Judges Crumlish, Jr., Mencer and Craig, sitting as a panel of three. Opinion by Judge Craig.
[ 43 Pa. Commw. Page 470]
This is an appeal by Bestyet, Incorporated (condemnee) from an eminent domain award by the Court of Common Pleas of Washington County of $27,035.47.
On January 19, 1973, the Redevelopment Authority of the County of Washington (condemnor) filed a declaration of taking of property in which the condemnee had a leasehold interest. A Board of Viewers awarded condemnee $15,300.00.
[ 43 Pa. Commw. Page 471]
Condemnee appealed, and the lower court, non-jury, ordered condemnor to pay to condemnee $26,025.47 for condemnee's move to a new building, $500.00 as reimbursement for time spent by condemnee in searching for a new location, and $510.00 for the cost of a new sign, relettering and similar costs incurred by condemnee, for a total award of $27,035.47. The lower court denied condemnee's claim for compensation for rent of a new location between the time its leasehold interest was condemned and the time it actually moved, as well as a claim for supervision during the move.
Condemnee's exceptions were dismissed by the court en banc, and condemnee appealed to this court.
Condemnee had a bakery facility of 3600 square feet, of which 3000 square feet were used for the manufacturing of baked goods, and 600 square feet were used as a retail outlet for its products. Condemnee leased the condemned property from Ernest G. Alexas, the fee owner. Condemnee became aware, sometime in 1970, that the property which it leased was to be condemned by condemnor and began searching for a new location. In February, 1971, condemnee entered into a lease for a new facility, but did not move into the new facility until July, 1974.
Condemnee raises the following issues on appeal: (1) the lower court erred in refusing to admit evidence pertaining to condemnee's claim for loss of patronage under Section 601-A(b)(3) of the Eminent Domain Code;*fn1 (2) the lower court erred in refusing to admit evidence of condemnee's loss of profit for the three weeks it was shut down while moving; (3) condemnee was entitled to compensation for rent paid for a new ...