Opinion
Submitted May 29, 2001.
July 16, 2001.
In an eminent domain proceeding, the State of New York appeals, as limited by its brief, from so much of an order of the Court 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.
Eliot Spitzer, Attorney-General, New York, N.Y. (Peter G. Crary and Robert M. Goldfarb of counsel), for appellant.
Flower, Medalie Markowitz, Bay Shore, N.Y. (Edward Flower and Donald Markowitz of counsel), for respondent.
Before: FRED T. SANTUCCI, J.P., GABRIEL M. KRAUSMAN, LEO F. McGINITY, SANDRA J. FEUERSTEIN, JJ.
ORDERED 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 A.D.2d 832; Sumitomo Bank of New York Trust Co. v. Town of N. Hempstead, 236 A.D.2d 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 [Court of Claims]) (Zappavigna v. State of New York, 186 A.D.2d 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.