We agree. On numerous occasions we have observed that rule 25-a of the Court of Claims ( 22 NYCRR 1200.27) permits free exchange of appraisals for a six-month period and rigid standards are to be applied for any time beyond that for the filing and exchange of appraisals between the parties (Laken Realty Corp. v State of New York, 37 A.D.2d 885; Leider v State of New York, 36 A.D.2d 788; Finger v State of New York, 36 A.D.2d 655; Farrington v State of New York, 33 A.D.2d 731, mot for lv to app den 27 N.Y.2d 531). However, in those cases we were concerned with the improper filing of a supplemental or an amended appraisal report.

At the time the appraisers for both claimants and the State prepared their appraisals, neither was aware of the sale to Strick Corporation, and both made findings of consequential damages. In Leider v. State of New York ( 36 A.D.2d 788), we affirmed an order denying a motion to amend the appraisals, but notice of the sale was served pursuant to section 16 CTC of the Court of Claims Act, and evidence of the sale was admitted at trial. The State's appraiser testified that, in consideration of the sale, he would revise his opinion as to after value to $175,000.

The State's appraiser prepared an appraisal consistent with the rule and, having placed this skeletal outline in the record, the State claims it was justified in using the map and several experts on the issue of probability of rezoning. In situations where the parties have sought to supplement their appraisals after the six-month limit the courts "impose rigid standards for the filing of appraisals after that period and the exchange of appraisals between the parties ( Leider v. State of New York, 36 A.D.2d 788; Finger v. State of New York, 36 A.D.2d 655;" ( Laken Realty Corp. v. State of New York, 37 A.D.2d 885, 886). We have held that rule 25a must be read with section 16 CTC of the Court of Claims Act and we have allowed evidence of sales to support the original appraisal, even though not included therein ( Mara v. State of New York, 38 A.D.2d 789). That determination, however, was made to cover the particular fact situation in that case. It should not be considered as a weakening of the rule, the purpose of which "is to enable the parties to prepare for trial with knowledge of each other's valuations and the foundations and justifications thereof" ( Parisi v. State of New York, 62 Misc.2d 378, 382). Simply expressed, the rule attempts to require full disclosure, to take the game aspect out of the case, to prevent surprises, to permit the court to determine just compensation based solely upon the facts unhindered by gamesmanship.

Such motions are directed to the discretion of the trial court and rule 25a ( 22 NYCRR 1200.27 [d] [2]) of the Court of Claims should be strictly construed and enforced unless it is shown that unusual and substantial circumstances would cause undue hardship if not remedied (e.g., Laken Realty Corp. v. State of New York, 37 A.D.2d 885, 886). We can find no such basis to disturb the trial court's discretion in the instant case. It would not only seem that claimant's attorneys and appraiser were aware of the allegedly needed changes in the submitted appraisals up to three months before the appraisals were actually exchanged but that at least some of the allegedly needed adjustments can be made pursuant to rule 16 which rule 25a did not abrogate (see Mara v. State of New York, 38 A.D.2d 789; Leider v. State of New York, 36 A.D.2d 788, 789). The fact that the State will suffer no detriment and even benefit from the proposed amendment is, of course, not controlling (see Finger v. State of New York, 36 A.D.2d 655) and the limitation on amendments is clearly not violative of due process (see Leider v. State of New York, supra).

The State complied with the provisions of section 16 and, therefore, evidence of the sales was admissible to support the original appraisal even though not included therein. ( Leider v. State of New York, 36 A.D.2d 788; Thomas v. State of New York, 37 A.D.2d 1030.)

The claimants filed their appraisal December 21, 1970 and the State moved to amend within 60 days of the exchange of appraisals. Rule 25-a of the Rules of the Court of Claims ( 22 NYCRR 1200.27 [c]) permits the court in its discretion to order amendments or supplements to appraisals for the purpose of correcting errors or adding pertinent matter. We have directed the trial courts to exercise their discretion strictly to implement the underlying purposes of the rules with respect to late filing of appraisals. ( Leider v. State of New York, 36 A.D.2d 788.) There was no abuse of discretion here. The original appraisal found no consequential damages and this after sale can only re-enforce that decision.

Further, at any reasonable time before trial, a party may be relieved from the requirements of the rule if it can show "unusual and substantial circumstances which if not remedied would cause undue hardship". The purpose of rule 25-a is to liberally and freely permit the filing of appraisals within the six-month period following the filing of the claim, but to impose rigid standards for the filing of appraisals after that period and the exchange of appraisals between the parties ( Leider v. State of New York, 36 A.D.2d 788; Finger v. State of New York, 36 A.D.2d 655; Farrington v. State of New York, 33 A.D.2d 731, mot. for lv. to app. dsmd. 27 N.Y.2d 531).

Inasmuch as five prior extensions of time have been granted by so ordered stipulations of the parties, the instant request for an extension of time to file appraisals is governed by § 206.21 [h] [3] which requires a showing of "unusual and substantial circumstances". "[T]he purpose of the appraisal rule is to permit the free and liberal exchange of appraisals for the initial time period . . . but to impose rigid standards thereafter" (Dufel v State of NY, NY State Thruway Auth., 187 AD2d 792, 793 [1992]; see also New York Tel. Co. v State of New York, 97 AD2d 664 [1983]; Laken Realty Corp. v State of New York, 37 AD2d 885 [1971]; Leider v State of New York, 36 AD2d 788 [1971]).Claimants here have proffered no reasonable excuse for the excessive delay in filing their appraisal.

Inasmuch as five prior extensions of time have been granted by so ordered stipulations of the parties, the instant request for an extension of time to file appraisals is governed by § 206.21[h][3] which requires a showing of “unusual and substantial circumstances”. “[T]he purpose of the appraisal rule is to permit the free and liberal exchange of appraisals for the initial time period ... but to impose rigid standards thereafter” (Dufel v. State of NY, N.Y. State Thruway Auth., 187 A.D.2d 792, 793 [1992];see also New York Tel. Co. v. State of New York, 97 A.D.2d 664 [1983];Laken Realty Corp. v. State of New York, 37 A.D.2d 885 [1971];Leider v. State of New York, 36 A.D.2d 788 [1971] ).Claimants here have proffered no reasonable excuse for the excessive delay in filing their appraisal.

(First Department, 22 NYCRR 660.18; Second Department, 22 NYCRR 678.1; Third Department, 22 NYCRR 839.3; Fourth Department, 22 NYCRR 1024.24; Court of Claims, 22 NYCRR 1200.27.) While the Second Department has not yet decided the point, the Appellate Division, Third Department, has held that the rules (which, owing to their common source may be read in pari materia) are to be rigidly enforced (Binghamton Urban Renewal Agency v Levene, 34 A.D.2d 241; Laken Realty Corp. v State of New York, 37 A.D.2d 885; Leider v State of New York, 36 A.D.2d 788). The taking occurred over eight years ago, and claimant has not been compensated.