New York State Court of Claims

New York State Court of Claims

ROCKLAND DEVELOPMENT ASSOCS. v. THE STATE OF NEW YORK, #2000-017-010, Claim No. 98583, Motion Nos. M-61291, CM-61498


Synopsis


The Court granted defendant's motion to compel claimant to provide requested rent rolls in connection with this appropriation claim and defendant's motion to extend the time for submitting its appraisal, and denied defendant's motion for sanctions. The Court also denied defendant's cross-motion for a trial date and for costs and disbursements on the motion.

Case Information

UID:
2000-017-010
Claimant(s):
ROCKLAND DEVELOPMENT ASSOCIATES
Claimant short name:
ROCKLAND DEVELOPMENT ASSOCS.
Footnote (claimant name) :

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

Third-party claimant(s):

Third-party defendant(s):

Claim number(s):
98583
Motion number(s):
M-61291
Cross-motion number(s):
CM-61498
Judge:
ANDREW P. O'ROURKE
Claimant's attorney:
Siegel Fenchel & Peddy, P.C.BY: Saul R. Fenchel, Esq.
Defendant's attorney:
Hon. Eliot Spitzer
Attorney General of the State of New YorkBY: Elyse J. Angelico, Esq., Assistant Attorney General
Third-party defendant's attorney:

Signature date:
June 19, 2000
City:
White Plains
Comments:

Official citation:

Appellate results:

See also (multicaptioned case)


Decision

The Court has read and considered the following papers, numbered one through two, on this motion to compel discovery, expand time for the filing of an appraisal and for sanctions and on this cross-motion for a conference date and trial date and for costs and disbursements:

Notice of Motion, Attorney Affirmation in Support and Exhibits.......................1

Notice of Cross-Motion, Attorney Affirmation in Opposition to Motion and

In Support of Cross-Motion and Exhibits........................................................2


The above-referenced claim involves a taking of claimant's property by the State in connection with a highway-widening project on Route 59 in Hillburn, New York. The taking date is April 8, 1998. On April 26, 1999, defendant served claimant's attorney with a Demand for a Verified Bill of Particulars, to which claimant's attorney responded on June 4, 1999. On October 29, 1999, defendant served claimant with a Notice to Produce upon the prompting of defendant's appraiser, seeking copies of monthly tenant lists and rent rolls for a period of two years prior to the date of appropriation and two years after the date of appropriation as well as IRS and Income and Expense Statements for the years 1996, 1997 and 1998 (see, Notice of Motion, Exh. A). Defendant has since withdrawn the request for IRS statements.

To date, claimant has provided defendant with Income and Expense Statements for 1995, 1996 and 1997 and what it has termed "representative" rent rolls for the months of May 1996 and May 1998, but has not provided defendant with an Income and Expense Statement for 1998 – the year of the taking – nor the rent rolls for the remainder of the requested period.

Defendant has since corresponded with claimant's attorney in an attempt to obtain the requested information, and has attached a letter from defendant's appraiser explaining the necessity of the requested documents (see, Notice of Motion, Exh. G). Defendant has also appended to this motion an affidavit of Paul Ritzcovan, the appraiser retained by the State in this matter, which indicates that the requested documentation is necessary to assist him in determining whether the property has suffered from vacancies or loss of rents during the relevant period (see, Notice of Motion, Exh. I).

The Court finds that an analysis of the rents and vacancies both before and after the taking would be relevant in determining whether the taking resulted in any consequential damages to the property, which is a key issue in assessing damages in a taking case (see, Uniform Rules of the Court of Claims, §§ 206.21[b][1], [2]). Thus, the Court finds that the requested information, which is narrowly tailored in scope, would be material and necessary in the defense of this action and thus that it should have been disclosed (see, CPLR 3101[a]). Accordingly, defendant's motion to compel disclosure is GRANTED, as is its motion for an extension of time to file an appraisal in this claim. To the extent that defendant seeks sanctions, however, the motion is DENIED. Claimant's Cross-Motion is in all respects DENIED.

Accordingly, claimant is directed to provide defendant with the aforementioned missing information within thirty (30) days of claimant's receipt of a filed copy of this Decision and Order. Defendant shall have sixty (60) days after receipt of that information to file its appraisal.



June 19, 2000
White Plains, New York

HON. ANDREW P. O'ROURKE
Judge of the Court of Claims