A "warrant" has been held to mean, in a legal sense, "a writing from a competent authority in pursuance of law, directing the doing of an act, and addressed to an officer or person competent to do the act" (People ex rel. Cooke v Wood, 71 N.Y. 371, 376). A warrant is a writ or precept issued by competent authority (Moody v State, 44 Ala. App. 26). On the other hand, the word "extension" has been defined, inter alia, as "an increase in length of time"; "a part constituting an addition" (Webster's New Collegiate Dictionary, p 406); the addition of something smaller, or of less import than that to which it is attached; the continuance of an existing thing, involving the idea of something pre-existing with which it is connected and which is thereby enlarged (35 CJS, Extension; see, also, New York Cent. Hudson Riv. R.R. Co. v Buffalo Williamsville Elec. Ry. Co., 96 App. Div. 471; People ex rel. Brooklyn, Queens County Suburban R.R. Co. v Steers, 158 App. Div. 153). The word "extension" ordinarily implies the existence of something to be extended (State v Graves, 352 Mo 1102). In elaborating on his theory that each extension order is in effect an eavesdropping warrant, thus mandating the sealing of tapes emanating from the original document at the end of the initial 30 days, the defendant notes that section 2518 (subd [8], par [a]) of title 18 of the United States Code provides for the sealing of wiretaps "[i]mmediately upon the expiration of the period of the order, or extensions thereof", whereas the New York State Legislature, in CPL 700.50 (subd 2), failed to include the phrase "or extensions thereof" after the phrase "[i]mmediately upon the expiration of the period of the eavesdropping warrant".