Opinion
December 15, 1978
Appeal from the Court of Claims.
Present — Marsh, P.J., Cardamone, Dillon, Schnepp and Witmer, JJ.
Judgment unanimously affirmed, with one bill of costs to all claimants. Memorandum: We reject the State's contention that the retrial was limited by this court's prior decision to questions of the elevations of the various areas involved (see Crisafulli v. State of New York, 41 A.D.2d 695). "In the absence of an express direction for a limited trial, the granting of a new trial should be construed to require a new trial generally" (Matter of Sipal Realty Corp. v. William, 15 A.D.2d 456, 457; see Halpern v. Amtorg Trading Corp., 292 N.Y. 42). Additionally, we conclude that the assertion of claimants' expert that the turbines were in actual operation was a product of his independent investigation. The basis for this testimony was not sought on cross-examination and no issue concerning this point has been raised on appeal. Otherwise we affirm the judgments for the reasons stated in the Court of Claims memorandum, Lengyel, J.