New York State Court of Claims

New York State Court of Claims

BAY ISLIP v. THE STATE OF NEW YORK, #2000-014-522, Claim No. 101406, Motion No. M-61866


Synopsis


Defendant's motion to compel responses to interrogatories, in a claim for the appropriation of real property, is granted in part and denied in part.

Case Information

UID:
2000-014-522
Claimant(s):
BAY ISLIP ASSOCIATES
Claimant short name:
BAY ISLIP
Footnote (claimant name) :

Defendant(s):
THE STATE OF NEW YORK
Footnote (defendant name) :

Third-party claimant(s):

Third-party defendant(s):

Claim number(s):
101406
Motion number(s):
M-61866
Cross-motion number(s):

Judge:
S. Michael Nadel
Claimant's attorney:
Flower, Medalie & MarkowitzBy: Edward Flower
Defendant's attorney:
Eliot Spitzer, Attorney GeneralBy: Martin Rowley, Assistant Attorney General
Third-party defendant's attorney:

Signature date:
September 29, 2000
City:
New York
Comments:

Official citation:

Appellate results:
Affirmed 2d Dept. 7/16/01
See also (multicaptioned case)



Decision


The following papers were read on the defendant's motion to compel responses to interrogatories: Notice of Motion, Affirmation and Exhibits annexed; Affirmation in Response; Reply Affirmation. Filed paper: Claim.

The defendant, in this claim for the appropriation of real property, moves to compel the claimant to respond to interrogatories numbered 9, 10, 17, 25, 26 and 38, contained in the Defendant's First Set of Interrogatories, dated February 23, 2000.

Upon the foregoing papers, the motion is denied in part and granted in part, as follows:

The defendant's motion is denied with respect to Interrogatories 9 and 10 concerning improvements on the property, and Interrogatory 17 concerning the effect of the taking on the claimant's use of the remainder of the property. These matters are appropriately the subject of appraisals, and rebuttals thereto if any, to be filed pursuant to §206.21 of the Uniform Rules for the Court of Claims. The motion is also denied, as premature, with respect to Interrogatory 38, seeking information concerning that portion of the claim which seeks relief pursuant to §701 of the Eminent Domain Procedure Law.

The motion is granted as to Interrogatories 25 and 26, which requests the claimant to provide "a full and complete description" of the areas which the claim alleges were the subject of de facto appropriation of a temporary and permanent easement. The claimant's response, that the "exact extent of the area of the de facto appropriation is unknown at this time," is inadequate. The nature of the claimant's claim in this regard should not await the filing of its appraisal.

In accordance with the foregoing, the defendant's motion is granted solely to the extent that the claimant is directed to respond to Interrogatories 25 and 26 within 30 days of the date of the filing of this Order; the motion is in all other respects denied.


September 29, 2000
New York, New York

HON. S. MICHAEL NADEL
Judge of the Court of Claims