New York State Court of Claims

New York State Court of Claims

LaGUARDIA v. THE STATE OF NEW YORK, #2001-014-544, Claim No. 101125, Motion No. M-63228


Synopsis



Case Information

UID:
2001-014-544
Claimant(s):
LaGUARDIA DEVELOPMENT CO., INC.
Claimant short name:
LaGUARDIA
Footnote (claimant name) :

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

Third-party claimant(s):

Third-party defendant(s):

Claim number(s):
101125
Motion number(s):
M-63228
Cross-motion number(s):

Judge:
S. Michael Nadel
Claimant's attorney:
Goldstein, Goldstein, Rikon & Gottlieb, P.C.By Robert S. Gottlieb
Defendant's attorney:
Eliot Spitzer, Attorney GeneralBy Martin Rowley, Assistant Attorney General
Third-party defendant's attorney:

Signature date:
June 5, 2001
City:
New York
Comments:

Official citation:

Appellate results:

See also (multicaptioned case)



Decision

The following papers were read on the claimant's motion seeking an extension of time to file an appraisal report: Notice of Motion, Affirmation and Exhibit annexed; Affirmation in Opposition; Reply Affirmation.

Pursuant to Rule 206.21(b) of the Uniform Rules for the Court of Claims, appraisal reports were to be filed by March 24, 2000, six months after the claim was filed. Neither side has filed an appraisal report, nor were any extensions of time requested (Rule 206.21[g]), prior to the filing of this motion nearly 17 months after the claim was filed.

The claimant's explanation for its failure to file an appraisal, or to request an extension of time to do so, is that the claimant's president was unaware of the time requirements, and that he did not have an attorney representing the claimant on the claim for most of the 17 months.

The defendant opposes the claimant's motion for an extension of time to file an appraisal, on the ground that the claimant has not demonstrated "unusual and substantial circumstances" (Rule 206.21[g][3]) warranting exercise of the Court's discretion to grant the extension. Noting that the defendant has not filed an appraisal, however, counsel for the defendant requests that if the claimant's motion is granted, the "defendant requests similar relief be awarded the defendant." Characterizing the defendant's failure to file an appraisal, or to request an extension of time to do, as "for much the same reason as claimant," counsel for the defendant states that the "attorney at the time . . . stopped coming to the office in February 2000 . . . and was terminated by the Law Department in May 2000." (Affirmation in Opposition, §7).

In his Reply Affirmation, counsel for the claimant modifies the relief sought to encompass an extension of time for both sides to submit appraisals.

The circumstances presented, which would not only result in a trial without any appraisals or any expert testimony by an appraiser, but would also deprive the parties of a basis for exploring the possibility of settlement, are sufficiently unusual and substantial to warrant exercise of the Court's discretion.

The claimant's motion is granted; both sides may file reports, pursuant to Rule 206.21, by December 31, 2001.


June 5, 2001
New York, New York

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