Oval wood dish liquidating trust
It further claims that the jury lacked the authority to grant respondent the right to lay an underground electric line and, lastly, that the entire verdict should be vacated due to numerous procedural and legal errors committed by respondent at trial.In its cross motion, respondent seeks an order of this court confirming the jury verdict rendered on September 9, 2010.There is no question that this court has jurisdiction to entertain the applications.As a preliminary matter, the court will consider only the motion and cross motion as there is no provision for an "appeal" from such a jury determination.On September 7, 8, and 9, 2010, a jury of 12 residents of the Town of Tupper Lake was formed, and a jury trial was conducted.
Respondent's Lake Simond Road Extension crosses a strip of property owned by petitioner, referred to in these proceedings as "the Road Parcel." It is at this existing crossing that respondent seeks a private road to furnish access to its approximately 1,282-acre property, the Moody Pond Parcel.Upon completion of the hearing, after due deliberation, the jury found the proposed road to be necessary and awarded petitioner damages.Petitioner now moves, pursuant to Highway Law § 312, to vacate or, in the alternative, to modify, the jury determination in this matter.In response, counsel for petitioner filed a reply memorandum of law.On January 20, 2011, counsel for both parties appeared before this court and oral argument was heard.
(hereinafter petitioner), in order to enable respondent to access a parcel of real property, known as the Moody Pond Parcel, in Tupper Lake. Pursuant to statute, respondent and petitioner presented witnesses and evidence to a jury comprised of Tupper Lake residents (see Highway Law §§ 301, 304-306).