expert report’’ be ‘‘led within two months after the exchange of appraisals
and reports.’’ The State suciently demonstrated that no undue advantage
was obtained, since the only information imparted to its expert was raw data
sales available from sources other than claimant's appraisal. Moreover, sec-
tion 206.21 of the Uniform Rules for the Court of Claims is structured in
such a manner as to contemplate that a party will possess the opposition's
appraisal and expert report throughout the period during which any amended
or supplemental document is being prepared for ling as of right within two
months of the date the original appraisals or reports are exchanged.
Consequently, there is no reasonable basis for aording the drastic relief of
striking the State's amended appraisal and expert report.
TOTAL CLIENT-SERVICE LIBRARYL REFERENCES
By the Publisher’s Editorial Sta
Am Jur 2d, Eminent Domain, §§ 298–301, 304, 897;
Sundays and Holidays, §§ 108,111.
Carmody-Wait 2d, Service and Filing of Papers § 20:16;
Eminent Domain §§ 108:188, 108:189, 108:192–108:194.
McKinney's , General Construction Law § 25–a. 22
NYCRR 206.21 (e) (f).
304 188 MISCELLANEOUS REPORTS, 2d SERIES
NY Jur 2d, Eminent Domain, §§ 394–399; Time, §§ 14, 19.
ANNOTATION REFERENCE
See ALR Index under Eminent Domain; Sundays and
Holidays.
APPEARANCES OF COUNSEL
Devorsetz Stinziano Gilberti Heintz & Smith, P. C. (Gerald J.
Mingolelli, Jr., of counsel), for claimant. Eliot Spitzer, Attorney
General (John J. Pickett of counsel), for defendant.
OPINION OF THE COURT
Francis T. Collins, J.
Claimant's motion for an order striking the defendant's
amended/supplemental appraisal led on November 20, 2000
and the amended/supplemental geological report of Essex