Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

CONDEMNATION BY URBAN REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY CITY PITTSBURGH ETC. MORRIS BENKOVITZ v. URBAN REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY CITY PITTSBURGH. MORRIS BENKOVITZ (02/09/81)

decided: February 9, 1981.

IN RE: CONDEMNATION BY THE URBAN REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY OF THE CITY OF PITTSBURGH: ETC. MORRIS BENKOVITZ
v.
URBAN REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY OF THE CITY OF PITTSBURGH. MORRIS BENKOVITZ, APPELLANT



Appeal from the Order of the Court of Common Pleas of Allegheny County in the case of In Re: Condemnation by the Urban Redevelopment Authority of the City of Pittsburgh: Centre Avenue in the Third Ward of the City of Pittsburgh, Allegheny County, Pennsylvania. Morris Benkovitz v. Urban Redevelopment Authority of the City of Pittsburgh, No. 1162 January Term, 1975.

COUNSEL

Benjamin B. Mecholler, with him Leonard D. Silk, Gefsky, Reich and Reich, for appellant.

Marion E. Popiel, for appellee.

Judges Wilkinson, Jr., Blatt and MacPhail, sitting as a panel of three. Opinion by Judge MacPhail.

Author: Macphail

[ 56 Pa. Commw. Page 524]

This is an appeal from an order of the Court of Common Pleas of Allegheny County which denied

[ 56 Pa. Commw. Page 525]

Morris Benkovitz' (Appellant) motion for a new trial.*fn1 We affirm.

Appellant owned property located at 1808, 1810 and 1812 Centre Avenue, in the Third Ward of the City of Pittsburgh, which was used in the operation of a wholesale and retail seafood business. The lower court found that a de facto taking had occurred on May 1, 1972 as a result of activities of the Urban Redevelopment Authority of the City of Pittsburgh (Appellee) in connection with a neighborhood development plan. The de facto taking included three buildings on the subject property.

A Board of Viewers was appointed and awarded damages in the amount of $125,000. Both parties appealed. The case was tried before a jury which rendered a verdict, on May 9, 1978, of $105,000.

Our scope of review is limited in cases of this nature to a determination of whether the trial court abused its discretion or committed a clear error of law in denying the motion for a new trial. Graff Brothers Scrap Iron and Metal Works Appeal, 44 Pa. Commonwealth Ct. 429, 404 A.2d 722 (1979).

Appellant argues that a new trial should have been granted by the court below because the verdict is inadequate, against the weight of the evidence and contrary to the charge of the court to the jury.

A denial of a motion for a new trial will not be disturbed on appeal on the ground of inadequacy of the verdict unless the verdict is so inadequate as to shock the appellate court's sense of justice. Abrams, Inc. v. Redevelopment Authority of the City ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.