J. David Finger v. State New York

[36 A.D.2d 655 Page 655] The State of New York appropriated the entire parcel of land owned by claimant in the Town of North Castle, Westchester
County, consisting of approximately 3.554 acres improved by two hangartype buildings. At the time of the appropriation, the
property, for a depth of 300 feet, was zoned RB (Roadside Business), and beyond the 300 feet, zoned PLI (Planned Light Industry).
The LPI zone permitted the same uses as did the RB zone. The claim was filed on November 8, 1965. On October 11, 1966, appraisals
were exchanged pursuant to rule 25a of the Rules of the Court of Claims (22 NYCRR 1200.27). The State discovered, at some
time subsequent to the filing of its appraisal, that it had made an error with respect to that portion of the property zone
PLI. On September 22, 1967, without making a motion, if filed a supplemental appraisal report. At the trial, the court received
the appraisal in evidence over claimant's objection. In the original appraisal, after stating the highest and best use would
be commercial along the front and residential for the rear acre, the State's appraiser assigned the land a value of $143,000
and the improvements a value of $32,000 for a total value of $175,000. In the supplemental appraisal, after stating that the
highest and best use for the rear acre was for supplemental commercial purposes, the appraiser assigned the land a value of
$149,000 and the improvements a value of $26,000, for a total of $175,000. The trial court concluded that "the fair and reasonable
value of the property was $173,000, rounded to $175,000" and awarded claimant $175,000 with interest. Claimant's contention
that the State's supplemental appraisal report was improperly received in evidence is well-founded. It was filed September
22, 1967, more than five months after the State received a copy of the claimant's additional appraisal report and was therefore
in violation of rule 25a as it then existed. The proper procedure would have been for the State to make a motion for permission
to file and serve such appraisal within 60 days of receipt of claimant's additional appraisal. We do not accept the State's
argument that since the purpose of the supplemental appraisal was merely to correct an error, the amount of damages remaining
the same, claimant was not prejudiced by the introduction into evidence of the report. There was a violation of rule 25a and
if the State desired to correct the mistake, it should have conformed with the requirement of the rule. The purpose of rule
25a was "to permit liberally and freely the filing of any and all appraisals within the six-month period following the filing
of the claim and to impose rigid standards for the filing of such appraisals after that period and the exchange of appraisals
between the parties" (Farrington v. State of New York, 33 A.D.2d 731, mot. for lv. to app. dsmd. 27 N.Y.2d 531). From the
language of the decision of [36 A.D.2d 655 Page 656]