Both parties led appraisals and reports by the September
15, 2000 deadline and the Clerk of the Court accomplished an
exchange of the documents pursuant to 22 NYCRR 206.21 (d)
on September 18, 2000. Defendant's attorney claims that he
was hard pressed to meet the September 15, 2000 ling date
due to his position as co-counsel on a dicult and lengthy
Indian land claim case being tried in the United States District
Court for the Northern District of New York. He alleged, that
in his absence from the oce, certain discovery items received
from claimant's attorneys were inadvertently led away rather
than being distributed to the State's experts and that some
demanded discovery items were not received until two days
prior to September 15, 2000. Upon the Court's refusal to allow
yet another extension of the ling date, the State led a ‘‘project
appraisal’’ and a preliminary version of its geological report.
Counsel alleges that the project appraisal, prepared pursuant
to Eminent Domain Procedure Law § 303 prior to the State's
taking of the property, utilized an incorrect valuation date of
December 19, 1997 which pre-dated the appropriation date of
July 22, 1998 by approximately seven months. It is further al-
leged that the led appraisal did not consider the information
garnered through discovery, including the deposition of
claimant's principal which was held on July 29, 2000. The State
contends that the project appraisal and the preliminary expert
report were led in order to meet the Court-imposed ling
deadline and it was the State's intention to amend or supple-
ment them rather than to rely upon the original documents at
trial. Counsel alleges that he advised claimant's attorney of
the State's intentions in this regard and assured him that every