Bay Islip Associates v. State

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Bay Islip Associates v. State

285 A.D.2d 522, 727 N.Y.S.2d 897, 2001 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 7483

CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York

DecidedJuly 16, 2001

StatusPublished

This text of 285 A.D.2d 522 (Bay Islip Associates v. State) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Bay Islip Associates v. State, 285 A.D.2d 522, 727 N.Y.S.2d 897, 2001 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 7483 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2001).

Pincite

Opinion

—In an eminent domain proceeding, the State of New York appeals, as limited by its brief, from so much of an order of the Qourt of Claims (Nadel, J.), dated September 29, 2000, as denied that branch of its motion which was to compel the claimant to respond to interrogatories 9, 10, and 17.

[523]*523Ordered that the order is affirmed insofar as appealed from, with costs.

The Court of Claims providently exercised its discretion in denying that branch of the appellant’s motion which was to compel the claimant to respond to interrogatories 9, 10, and 17 (see, Schobel v Godwin, 264 AD2d 832; Sumitomo Bank v Town of N. Hempstead, 236 AD2d 600). The challenged interrogatories seek information which is appropriately provided in the appraisal to be filed by the claimant pursuant to the Uniform Rules for Trial Courts (see, 22 NYCRR 206.21 [Ct Cl]) (Zappavigna v State of New York, 186 AD2d 557), and is otherwise readily available to the State, or which was sufficiently provided in the amended responses to interrogatories. Santucci, J. P., Krausman, McGinity and Feuerstein, JJ., concur.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

—In an eminent domain proceeding, the State of New York appeals, as limited by its brief, from so much of an order of the Qourt of Claims (Nadel, J.), dated September 29, 2000, as denied that branch of its motion which was to compel the claimant to respond to interrogatories 9, 10, and 17.

[523]*523Ordered that the order is affirmed insofar as appealed from, with costs.

The Court of Claims providently exercised its discretion in denying that branch of the appellant’s motion which was to compel the claimant to respond to interrogatories 9, 10, and 17 (see, Schobel v Godwin, 264 AD2d 832; Sumitomo Bank v Town of N. Hempstead, 236 AD2d 600). The challenged interrogatories seek information which is appropriately provided in the appraisal to be filed by the claimant pursuant to the Uniform Rules for Trial Courts (see, 22 NYCRR 206.21 [Ct Cl]) (Zappavigna v State of New York, 186 AD2d 557), and is otherwise readily available to the State, or which was sufficiently provided in the amended responses to interrogatories. Santucci, J. P., Krausman, McGinity and Feuerstein, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

285 A.D.2d 522, 727 N.Y.S.2d 897, 2001 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 7483, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/bay-islip-associates-v-state-nyappdiv-2001.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack