Opinion
February 10, 1971
Appeal from a judgment entered October 7, 1969 upon a decision of the Court of Claims. 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 hangar-type 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 PLI 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 zoned PLI. On September 22, 1967, without making a motion, it 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 the trial court, it is impossible to determine whether the court based its award upon the State's original appraisal, its supplemental appraisal, or both. If it relied upon the original appraisal, the award is unsupportable since such appraisal was based upon an incorrect zoning determination. The property was zoned PLI and the appraisal valued a portion of it as residential. If the court relied upon the supplemental appraisal, it is unsupportable not only because this appraisal should not have been received in evidence, but also because the State's appraiser arbitrarily changed the values of both the land and the buildings. After increasing the value of the land due to the change in zoning, the appraiser, without adequate explanation, reduced the value of the buildings by a like amount ($6,000). A further reason appears for the rejection of the supplemental appraisal. The two and one-half acres zoned RB were accorded a value of $55,000 per acre, but the acre zoned PLI was valued at $10,000. The reason given for the $45,000 per acre discrepancy was that potential purchasers were unwilling to pay extra for added depth. Although there might be a lower value to this property due to this factor, the supplemental appraisal does not give an adequate explanation for the large discrepancy. Judgment reversed, on the law and the facts, and a new trial ordered, with costs. Reynolds, J.P., Staley, Jr., Greenblott, Cooke and Sweeney, JJ., concur.