The Supreme Court issued a judgment on January 24, 2012 awarding plaintiff damages with respect to his interest in a property investment. The plaintiff’s expert used an investment valuation analysis because he determined that there was no market for the property on 76th Street, a conclusion the Supreme Court agreed with. However, the Court then mistakenly found the plaintiff failing to meet his burden of proof because of a prior order requiring a market value analysis even when no such market existed. Additionally, the Court also dismissed defendants arguments that the amounts awarded to plaintiff should have been discounted.

LINK TO DECISION