its amended appraisal of three of the four comparable sales
contained in claimant's appraisal is violative of subdivision (e)
of section 206.21, which permits the ling of additional
‘‘pertinent matter.’’ In fact, it appears to the Court that as cur-
rently constituted section 206.21 of the Uniform Rules is
structured in such a manner as to contemplate that a party
will possess his or her opposition's appraisal and expert report
throughout the period during which he or she is preparing any
amended or supplemental document for ling, as of right,
within two months of the date the original appraisals or reports
are exchanged by the Clerk. Given this circumstance, as well
as the absence of any procedural or substantive impediment in
the language of section 206.21, the Court can discern no rea-
sonable basis for aording the drastic relief of striking the
defendant's amended appraisal and expert report as requested
by the claimant.
The Court by this motion has, however, been made aware of
the fact that the defendant's amended appraisal contains a sig-
nicant increase in the overall before value of the subject prop-
erty from $750,000 in the project appraisal to $3,640,000 in the
amended appraisal. Claimant also points out that, despite the
385% rise in the before-taking value contained in the defen-
DAILEY, INC. v STATE OF NY [188 Misc 2d 303] 309
dant's amended appraisal, the defendant's damage estimate
increased by a mere 35%. While these dierences are dramatic,
they are merely elements of proof to be oered to the Court,
which bear the responsibility of determining just compensation
for the taking based upon the evidence in the record (Perga-
ment v State of New York, 39 AD2d 781).
With the benet of hindsight, the Court in this instance