-----BEGIN PRIVACY-ENHANCED MESSAGE----- Proc-Type: 2001,MIC-CLEAR Originator-Name: webmaster@www.sec.gov Originator-Key-Asymmetric: MFgwCgYEVQgBAQICAf8DSgAwRwJAW2sNKK9AVtBzYZmr6aGjlWyK3XmZv3dTINen TWSM7vrzLADbmYQaionwg5sDW3P6oaM5D3tdezXMm7z1T+B+twIDAQAB MIC-Info: RSA-MD5,RSA, GZBgoHqpb6BokGGZCtYyF2XHFG4xUDkZF6XHt+tZAtDjFpF7VYcCCTPmYSn77ABB 43iBZ8aBaOL7PimPxOqTqQ== 0001266454-08-000409.txt : 20080801 0001266454-08-000409.hdr.sgml : 20080801 20080801172410 ACCESSION NUMBER: 0001266454-08-000409 CONFORMED SUBMISSION TYPE: 8-K PUBLIC DOCUMENT COUNT: 3 CONFORMED PERIOD OF REPORT: 20080714 ITEM INFORMATION: Regulation FD Disclosure ITEM INFORMATION: Other Events ITEM INFORMATION: Financial Statements and Exhibits FILED AS OF DATE: 20080801 DATE AS OF CHANGE: 20080801 FILER: COMPANY DATA: COMPANY CONFORMED NAME: GYRODYNE CO OF AMERICA INC CENTRAL INDEX KEY: 0000044689 STANDARD INDUSTRIAL CLASSIFICATION: OPERATORS OF NONRESIDENTIAL BUILDINGS [6512] IRS NUMBER: 111688021 STATE OF INCORPORATION: NY FISCAL YEAR END: 1231 FILING VALUES: FORM TYPE: 8-K SEC ACT: 1934 Act SEC FILE NUMBER: 000-01684 FILM NUMBER: 08986043 BUSINESS ADDRESS: STREET 1: 1 FLOWERFIELD STREET 2: SUITE 24 CITY: ST JAMES STATE: NY ZIP: 11780 BUSINESS PHONE: 6315845400 MAIL ADDRESS: STREET 1: 1 FLOWERFIELD STREET 2: SUITE 24 CITY: ST JAMES STATE: NY ZIP: 11780 8-K 1 gyrodyne_8k.txt UNITED STATES SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION Washington, D.C. 20549 FORM 8-K CURRENT REPORT PURSUANT TO SECTION 13 OR 15(d) OF THE SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE ACT OF 1934 -------------------- Date of Report (Date of earliest event reported): July 14, 2008 -------------------- GYRODYNE COMPANY OF AMERICA, INC. --------------------------------- (Exact name of Registrant as Specified in its Charter) New York 000-01684 11-1688021 -------- --------- ---------- (State or other jurisdiction (Commission File (I.R.S. Employer of incorporation) Number) Identification No.) 1 FLOWERFIELD, Suite 24 ST. JAMES, NEW YORK 11780 ------------------------- (Address of principal executive offices) (Zip Code) (631) 584-5400 ------------------------- Registrant's telephone number, including area code N/A ------------------------- (Former name or former address, if changed since last report.) Check the appropriate box below if the Form 8-K filing is intended to simultaneously satisfy the filing obligation of the registrant under any of the following provisions: [ ] Written communications pursuant to Rule 425 under the Securities Act (17 CFR 230.425) [ ] Soliciting material pursuant to Rule 14a-12 under the Exchange Act (17 CFR 240.14a-12) [ ] Pre-commencement communications pursuant to Rule 14d-2(b) under the Exchange Act (17 CFR 240.14d-2(b)) [ ] Pre-commencement communications pursuant to Rule 13e-4(c) under the Exchange Act (17 CFR 240.13e-4(c)) Item 7.01. Regulation FD Disclosure. An interview with Peter Pitsiokos, the Chief Operating Officer of Gyrodyne Company of America, Inc. (the "Company") was published in The Wall Street Transcript on July 14, 2008, a copy of which is attached hereto as Exhibit 99.1 and incorporated herein by reference. Item 8.01. Other Events. In connection with the Company's pending claim seeking $158 million for the condemnation of 245.5 cares of its Flowerfield property, on July 29, 2008, the Court of Claims of the State of New York issued an Order granting the State's motion for an extension of the deadline to exchange appraisals to November 10, 2008, and stating that no further applications for an adjournment of the appraisal deadline will be accepted. A copy of the Order is attached hereto as Exhibit 99.2 and incorporated herein by reference. Item 9.01. Financial Statements and Exhibits. (d) Exhibits Exhibit No. Description - ----------- ----------- 99.1 Text of Interview. 99.2 Court Order. 1 SIGNATURE Pursuant to the requirements of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, the Registrant has duly caused this report to be signed on its behalf by the undersigned, hereunto duly authorized. GYRODYNE COMPANY OF AMERICA, INC. By: /s/ Stephen V. Maroney ------------------------------------ Stephen V. Maroney President, Chief Executive Officer and Treasurer Date: August 1, 2008 2 EX-99.1 2 gyrodyne_ex9901.txt INTERVIEW TRANSCRIPT Exhibit 99.1 - -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- EXCERPTED FROM: - -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- JULY 14, 2008 THE WALL STREET TRANSCRIPT Questioning Market leaders For long Term Investors THE FOLLOWING REPORT IS EXCERPTED FROM THE WALL STREET TRANSCRIPT COMPANY INTERVIEW PETER PITSIOKOS Gyrodyne Company of America, Inc. - -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- NOTICE The Wall Street Transcript does not in any way endorse or guarantee the accuracy or reliability of any of the information, statements or opinions expressed in the reports or comments of other firms or individuals. We take due care to report or transcribe accurately what has been written or said by others but because of the possibility of human or mechanical error, we cannot assume any liability for the correctness of the transcription. We point out further that, of course, all opinions expressed are subject to change without notice. Neither the information or any opinion which may be expressed constitutes a solicitation for the purchase or sale of any securities referred to herein. For further information, contact the individual or investment organization concerned. CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER FORUMS/INTERVIEWS Important Note: Wall Street Transcript forums and interviews with Chief Executive Officers are published verbatim as editorial content and include "forward-looking statements" (as such term is defined in the United States Private Securities Litigation Reform Act of 1995). These "forwardlooking statements" may be subject to and be made pursuant to the "safe-harbor" provisions of Section 27A of the United States Securities Act of 1933, as amended, and Section 21E of the United States Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended. Since these statements are based on factors that involve risks and uncertainties, actual results may differ materially from those expressed or implied by such "forward-looking statements". Such factors are often included in the company's filings of reports with the United States Securities and Exchange Commission, including Forms 10-K, 10-Q, 8-K and Proxy Statements; the company's annual and interim reports to shareholders and similar documents. In carrying out our responsibilities to our readers and to the Chief Executive Officers selected for forums or interviews, we are required to offer, and we offer, each Chief Executive Officer an opportunity to back-up the interview and provide our readers and potential investors with specific financial data, including earnings statements, balance sheet statements and other material business and financial data, through the sponsored publication of such reports or highlights therefrom, with meaningful information. Founded 1963 Published by Wall Street Transcript Corporation 48 West 37Th Street, 8th Floor, New York, NY 10018 Copyright 2008 Wall Street Transcript Corporation All Rights Reserved - -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- COMPANY INTERVIEW - -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Gyrodyne Company of America, Inc. (Gyro) [GRAPHIC OMITTED: PHOTO] PETER PITSIOKOS, Chief Operating Officer and Chief Compliance Officer of Gyrodyne Company of America, Inc., since 2004, joined the firm in 1992 as Assistant Secretary and General Counsel. He also has been its Secretary for more than five years. Formerly, Mr. Pitsiokos served as the Executive Assistant District Attorney in Suffolk County, New York, and also has been Assistant Director of Economic Development and Director of Water Resources in the Town of Brookhaven. Mr. Pitsiokos also maintained a private law practice in which he represented several national and local owners, managers and developers of real estate. He holds a Law degree from Villanova University and a Bachelor's degree from Stony Brook University. SECTOR - REITS (AKB605) TWST: May we start with a short history and overview of your company? Mr. Pitsiokos: Gyrodyne was founded in 1946 as a defense manufacturer of coaxial helicopters for the United States Navy, but we have been out of that business since the mid-1970s. Our real estate assets in St. James, New York, which formerly were used as test facilities, became very valuable in the market. So we shifted to the role of landlord and transformed the buildings into multi- tenant, light industrial buildings. We are also developing vacant land in St. James, New York, as age-restricted housing. In late 2005, the State University at Stony Brook took 250 acres of that vacant land by eminent domain, and we are currently in the Court of Claims with the state on the issue of that land's value. We received an advance payment of $26.3 million, which, under Internal Revenue Code Section 1033, we are required to reinvest in real estate by the end of April 2009. We have acquired two properties toward that end. One is the Port Jefferson Professional Park in Port Jefferson, New York, which we bought last year at a cost of $8.85 million. Most recently, on June 2, we closed sale on the Cortlandt Manor Medical Center in Cortlandt Manor, New York, which we acquired for $7 million. Our short-term plan going forward is to reinvest the balance of the money, which is approximately another $10 million, in stabilized revenue-generating assets. TWST: What was the reason for repositioning the company from a property such as Flowerfield to the medical side? Mr. Pitsiokos: The stability and recession- resistant nature of medical office product make it a particularly appealing asset class. Hospitals currently are working to monetize their assets, and they are selling their affiliated office properties and reinvesting in areas more directly related to their healthcare offerings. To that end, there are opportunities for investors, like Gyrodyne, to add quality properties to our portfolios. Add to that the Copyrighted material: For reproduction permission contact Kenneth Wolfrath (212) 952-7400 - -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- COMPANY INTERVIEW -- GYRODYNE COMPANY OF AMERICA, INC. - -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- ageing demographic in the United States, and we feel that health-related properties will continue to increase in value. --------------------------------------------------------------------- "The stability and recession-resistant nature of medical office product make it a particularly appealing asset class. Hospitals currently are working to monetize their assets, and they are selling their affiliated office properties and reinvesting in areas more directly related to their healthcare offerings.To that end, there are opportunities for investors, like Gyrodyne, to add quality properties to our portfolios." --------------------------------------------------------------------- TWST: What are you seeing as far as cap rates are concerned in healthcare properties when compared to the average for what REITs are paying for, let's say, industrial or property in general? Mr. Pitsiokos: Across asset classes, the closing prices right now tend to be in the 7-cap range. However, we were fortunate in the case of the Cortlandt Manor property to close that deal at a 9.8 cap rate. We were very proud of that deal and were certainly very pleased that we were able to acquire at that cap rate. TWST: Would you comment on the current occupancy of Flowerfield, Port Jefferson, as well as Cortlandt and what you are seeing in terms of leases and rent increases? Mr. Pitsiokos: In all three cases, our occupancy rates are above 90%. Cortlandt Manor and Port Jefferson are approximately 97%, and Flowerfield is at 92%. We are very proud of what we've been able to do at Flowerfield, in particular, because the occupancy rate there has dramatically increased over the course of the last year-and-a-half up from 70%. This can be credited to demand in that submarket as well as our efforts to reposition and make improvements at Flowerfield. The average industrial rental rate on Long Island is between $7 and $8 per square foot. Our average rental rate at Flowerfield is approximately $13.5 per square foot. In Port Jefferson, our average rental rate is hovering in the mid- to low-$20s, but the market rate is higher. So we are able to renew leases at market in the $24 to $25 per square foot range. In the case of Cortlandt Manor, the rental rates are significantly higher, hovering just below $30 per square foot. Market rentals in Westchester County are stabilized right around that rate. TWST: What is the strategy for acquisition as you look ahead in terms of geography as well as in terms of asset class? Mr. Pitsiokos: In terms of geography, we're exploring properties from Florida all the way to Massachusetts and everywhere in-between. We think that there may be better long-term opportunities for asset appreciation in the Southeastern regions of the United States than there may be in the Northeastern regions. That's why we're focusing outside of our current core area. In terms of asset class, we will continue to assemble our portfolio along the same path we are on today. This includes the planned development of our age-restricted community in St. James and our recent medical office acquisitions. TWST: What is the company's attitude toward partnerships? Mr. Pitsiokos: We are certainly open to partnerships. Part of our strategic plan calls for us to explore opportunities for joint ventures, partnerships, and other business combinations including the potential acquisition of our company. TWST: Have you received any offers as of yet? Mr. Pitsiokos: We currently have a memorandum of understanding with Lexington Realty - -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- COMPANY INTERVIEW -- GYRODYNE COMPANY OF AMERICA, INC. - -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Trust. Although we have not entered into a joint venture arrangement with them, we have discussed the possibility of co-venturing on the acquisition of some stabilized properties. TWST: Is the company open to a full acquisition by another company? Mr. Pitsiokos: Yes. TWST: Have you received any interest as of yet? Mr. Pitsiokos: Until we can solve issues surrounding the valuation of our assets, we will not likely see interest lead to anything more substantial than that. The value of part of Flowerfield, our largest holding, is tied up in the court case against the State of New York. TWST: All things remaining equal and based on the adjoining value of the property, how would this property be assessed? Mr. Pitsiokos: Our case against the State of New York is in the amount of $158 million. TWST: What are the challenges that lie ahead for a company such as Gyrodyne? What worries you the most? Mr. Pitsiokos: Time and its value are the biggest concerns for Gyrodyne, as they would be for any company whose fate in large part depends on the judgment of a Court of Claims. We continue to press for the expeditious resolution of this case in the court. However, the court has continuously granted extensions to the state attorney general's office for preparation of their expert testimony. So my biggest concern is that the court will not bring this case to resolution quickly despite our very vigorous efforts to show the court why this is so important. TWST: Would you introduce us to your management team and comment on your own expertise? Mr. Pitsiokos: The Gyrodyne management team includes our CEO, Stephen Maroney, and myself. Mr. Maroney's background is in the banking industry. I am an attorney by education, and I have represented numerous owners and developers throughout my career. During the 16 years I have been with Gyrodyne, I've continued to grow my experience in transactional and development real estate, both as a landlord and in the development process. TWST: How does the balance sheet look to you currently? Mr. Pitsiokos: The balance sheet looks good. We still have quite a bit of cash as a result of the eminent domain down payment for Flowerfield, and we are hopeful that, upon the new appraisal by the state, we will receive additional monies. We are working hard to contain costs, especially the costs of litigation associated with the condemnation. TWST: Do you have a current dividend policy? Mr. Pitsiokos: We issued a $4 dividend last year. We are certainly hopeful that we can continue to issue dividends as cash becomes available. TWST: Does Gyrodyne have an estimate on when the issue with the State of New York will be resolved through the courts? Mr. Pitsiokos: Unfortunately, with every estimate that we've given, the judge has proven us wrong. We were hopeful that by now the case would be resolved. However, we continue to be optimistic that it will be concluded soon. TWST: What does the shareholder base look like? Mr. Pitsiokos: We've had increasing interest in recent years from institutional shareholders. Our largest shareholder is Bulldog Investors, which - -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- COMPANY INTERVIEW -- GYRODYNE COMPANY OF AMERICA, INC. - -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- is headed by Andrew Dakos and Phillip Goldstein. In terms of other shareholders, most of that information is easily accessed. TWST: Do you feel you are reasonably well understood by the financial markets? Mr. Pitsiokos: We think that the markets have undervalued the company, and we think that they have tied us in generally to how REITs are performing. Our stock price has declined on a percentage basis almost identical to the way the REIT Index has declined. We don't believe that fairly values the assets owned by the company. TWST: Do you have an aggressive investor relations program? Mr. Pitsiokos: Given the fact that we only have about 1.3 million shares issued and outstanding, we don't have many shareholders by volume. As such, we personally communicate with many of them. It's a unique situation in that regard, and we like it very much because it gives us an opportunity to stay directly in touch. TWST: Please give us a quick assessment of where you expect the company to be two to three years down the road. Mr. Pitsiokos: New York State does not have even one medical office building that has earned LEED certification or that meets green benchmarks. Gyrodyne wants to be the first landlord with a property that achieves this distinction. Environmentally friendly buildings not only reflect social consciousness, they are good business. Sustainability adds value, and in the future buyers will pay a premium for these properties. When it comes to green initiatives, we expect that two or three years from now Gyrodyne will be known as a leader in this emerging sector. TWST: Thank you. (WT) PETER PITSIOKOS COO Gyrodyne Company of America, Inc. One Flowerfield Suite 24 St. James, NY 11780 (631) 584-5400 (631) 584-7075 www.gyrodyne.com EX-99.2 3 gyrodyne_ex9902.txt COURT ORDER Exhibit 99.2 FILED COURTESY COPY JUL 29 2008 STATE COURT OF CLAIMS ALBANY, NY STATE OF NEW YORK COURT OF CLAIMS - ------------------------------------------------------------------------ GYRODYNE COMPANY OF AMERICA, INC., Claimant, DECISION AND ORDER -V- THE STATE OF NEW YORK(1), Claim No. 112279 Motion Nos. M-74174 M-74909 Defendant. - ------------------------------------------------------------------------ BEFORE: HON. JAMES J. LACK Judge of the Court of Claims APPEARANCES: For Claimant: Robinson & Cole, LLP By: Joseph L. Clasen, Esq. and David E. Ross, Esq. For Defendant: Andrew M. Cuomo, New York State Attorney General By: J. Gardner Ryan, Assistant Attorney General ========================================= This claim involves the appropriation of 245 acres of land and improvements belonging to Gyrodyne Company of America, Inc. (hereinafter "claimant"). The land is located in St. James, New York. The appropriation of the 245 acres is a partial taking of a 310 acre parcel of land. - ----------------- (1) The Court sua spante amends the caption to read The State of New York as the properly named Defendant. Claim No. 112279, Motion Nos. M-74174, M-74909 Page 2 By two motions, defendant seeks an extension of time to file appraisals until November 10, 2008. The land was appropriated by the State ofNew York (hereinafter "defendant") on November 2, 2005. Claimant served its claim on May 10, 2006. According to the Uniform Rules for the Court of Claims ss.206.21(b), the parties' appraisals were to be filed in the Clerk's Office by November 10, 2006. The parties stipulated to extensions of time to file the appraisals. The first extension was until May 2, 2007 and the second was until November 5, 2007. On November 5, 2007, defendant filed a motion (M-74174) for an extension of time to file its appraisal until May 6, 2008(2). Thereafter, on May 5, 2008, defendant filed a second motion (M-74909)(3) for an extension of time to file its appraisal until November 10, 2008.(4) In support of the first motion, defendant submitted the Affidavit of its appraiser, Kenneth Golub. Mr. Golub states that beginning in August 2007, his work schedule was constrained due to an illness in his family and his father's death in October 2007. In addition to Mr. Golub's personal - -------------- (2) The following papers have been read and considered on defendant's motion: Notice of Motion dated November 5, 2007 and filed November 5, 2007; Affirmation in Support of J. Gardner Ryan, Esq. dated November 5, 2007 and filed November 5, 2007; Affidavit of Kenneth L. Golub sworn to November 1, 2007 and filed November 5, 2007; Affirmation of David E. Ross in Partial Opposition to Defendant's Motion for Extension of Time dated November 5, 2007 and filed November 7, 2007. (3) The following papers have been read and considered on defendant's motion: Notice of Motion dated April 30, 2008 and filed May 5, 2008; Affirmation of J. Gardner Ryan, Esq. dated April 30, 2008 and filed May 5, 2008; Affidavit of Kenneth L. Golub sworn to April 30, 2008 and filed May 5, 2008; Affirmation of Joseph L. Clasen in Opposition to Defendant's Second Motion for an Extension of Time to Exchange Expert Discovery dated May 7, 2008 and filed May 8, 2008; Affidavit of David E. Ross in Opposition to Defendant's Second Motion for an Extension of Time to Exchange Expert Discovery sworn to May 7, 2008 and filed May 8, 2608; Affidavit of Timothy Barnes in Opposition to Defendant's Second Motion for an Extension of Time to Exchange Expert Discovery sworn to May 7, 2008 and filed May 8, 2008. (4) As the Court had yet to decide the first motion, the parties treated the first motion as if it had been granted. Therefore, defendant filed the second motion prior to the expiration of the May 6, 2008 extension period. Claim No. 112279, Motion Nos. M-74174, M-74909 Page 3 reasons, he cites the complexities associated with this piece of property which require more time. Specifically, at paragraph 5 of his Affidavit, Mr. Golub states: 5. The Gyrodyne appraisal is a very complicated one and will require much more time than typical because: a) the property is one of the largest contiguous parcels in its market so the valuation requires a geographically broad-based, time-consuming search for comparable land sales. I want to be sure that I present a full spectrum of relevant sales information for the Court to consider. b) Gyrodyne has formulated an elaborate development scheme involving a golf course surrounded by luxury homes. Its eminent domain claim posits this as the property's highest and best use. The property is zoned for industrial use, so Gyrodyne's development plan may or may not be reasonable. A proper appraisal requires that I meet with public officials to determine if Gyrodyne's plan can be realized, and I have already held some of those meetings. I need time to arrange other such meetings. c) Gyrodyne later formulated some alternative residential development schemes, with different numbers of homes, and some plans without the golf course. Those alternate housing plans also merit consideration and may merit value estimates. d) depending on the outcome of the highest and best use analysis, I may need to appraise this property based on industrial use or residential use, or both. My objective with an eminent domain appraisal is to appraise the highest market value, so it may be necessary to make several appraisals and let the highest value prove which use is highest and best. e) I have been collaborating with a professional engineering firm retained by the New York State Attorney General's Office, to evaluate Gyrodyne's development scheme. We have discussed alternate development schemes for industrial and Claim No. 112279, Motion Nos. M-74174, M-74909 Page 4 residential use, and the engineers' insights influence my appraisal assumptions. My collaboration with the engineering firm has been time-consuming and that will continue to be the case. f) the property has a number of industrial buildings, occupied by more than 50 tenants. Those buildings may be valuable if the property's industrial use is worth the most, or they could be liabilities if the land is most valuable for housing. The buildings may also have an interim value, based on their rents until they are razed to build new homes. The industrial buildings are another complication in this appraisal. Mr. Golub's Affidavit in support of the second motion is similar to the first as to his concerns for the size and unique nature of the property. In addition, he has been attempting to meet with claimant's expert for a formal inspection of the property. As of the date of his Affidavit, the experts' schedules had not allowed for an inspection. In addition, Mr. Golub is awaiting information from claimant to allow him to properly assess the tenants and industrial area of the property. Claimant opposes the extensions of time sought by defendant. According to Timothy Barnes, a consultant employed by claimant, the delay in obtaining information and setting an inspection has been due to Mr. Golub. Mr. Barnes describes sporadic contact by Mr. Golub with claimant's expert or representative. There was a ten-month delay between two of Mr. Golub's phone calls, with no excuse given to Mr. Barnes for the delay. According to the Uniform Rules for the Court of Claims ss.206.21(g)(2), a party may obtain an extension of time by motion to the assigned judge. The Court may grant the extension, in its discretion, upon terms and conditions that maybe just. An application for an extension of time must satisfy different standards depending on whether it is made before the filing deadline expires (22 Claim No. 112279, Motion Nos. M-74174, M-74909 Page 5 NYCRR ss. 206.21 [g] [2], "showing good cause") or after the expiration (22 NYCRR ss. 206.21 [g] [3], "showing unusual and substantial circumstances"; Dufel v State ofNew York, 187 AD2d 792). The burden of proof rests with the movant to demonstrate the circumstances which warrant the exercise of the Court's discretion (Fiesinger v State of New York, 88 Misc 2d 557, 561, citing Hogan v State of New York, 43 AD2d 876). In re Matter of Acquisition of Real Prop. by the Town of Guilderland, 244 AD2d 604, claimants asked for an extension of time based upon the complex and time consuming nature of the appraisal. The parties agreed to an extension of time until September 1, 1995 as the last date to file. Claimants filed their report in April 1996. The Court held: While claimants' dilatory conduct is not to be condoned, we are not disposed to say that Supreme Court abused its discretion by granting the requested relief. In exercising its discretion to determine whether a party has shown "good cause" for relieving a default in filing (see, 22 NYCRR 202.61 [a] [3]), the trial court must consider all of the relevant circumstances, not merely the excuse or reason proffered for the delay. Though it has been held otherwise with respect to the filing of an amended or supplemental report (see, Matter of Country Knolls Water Works [Hoffman], 229 AD2d 859, 860; Matter of City of Amsterdam v Board of Assessors, 111 AD2d 1017; Salesian Socy. v Village of Ellenville, 98 AD2d 927, 928), when the belated filing involves an initial report, the obvious and severe hardship that accrues to the offering party as a result of rejection of that report--namely, preclusion of the introduction of "any appraisal testimony on value" (22 NYCRR 202.61 [e]; see, Matter of G.T.I. Co. v Assessor &Assessment Bd. of Review, 88 Misc 2d 806, 809)--has been deemed sufficient basis for granting the relief sought (see, Gustafson v State of New York, 56 AD2d 695, 696). If an arguably tenable excuse is proffered as well, ample foundation exists for a decision favoring the movant. See also Matter of Honess 52 Corp. v Assessor of Fishkill, 295 AD2d 429. Claim No. 112279, Motion Nos. M-74174, M-74909 Page 6 The Court notes that the first motion was filed before the appraisal deadline passed. Thus, defendant must show good cause for the extension. After examining the parties' papers, the Court grants defendant's motion to extend the time to May 6, 2008. The granting of defendant's first motion means that defendant's second motion was filed prior to the deadline passing. The Court notes claimant's frustration with defendant in not completing its appraisal. While the Court believes defendant has been a bit dilatory, it also accepts the explanation of defendant's expert as to the complexity of the instant appraisal. The property is 245 acres with mixed zoning of industrial and residential use. In addition, part of the property is located within the Town of Smithtown and part is in the Town of Brookhaven. The result of precluding the defendant's appraisal would be harsh and prejudicial. The result would be that no range of value would exist and claimant's value would stand as the sole evidence of the value of the property. While the Court grants defendant's second motion on the basis that it has shown good cause, the Court also finds unique and special circumstances (22 NYCRR ss. 206.21[g][3]) based upon the reasoning previously stated. Based upon the foregoing, defendant's motions (M-74174 and M-74909) for an extension of time to file its appraisal until May 6, 2008 and thereafter until November 10, 2008, are granted. Claim No. 112279, Motion Nos. M-74174, M-74909 Page 7 While the Court grants the extensions, the Court shares claimant's frustration. The Court sets the date of November 10, 2008 as the final date for submission of appraisals. No further applications for an adjournment of the appraisal deadline will be accepted. Hauppauge, New York June 25, 2008 /s/ James J. Lack ------------------------------ JAMES J. LACK Judge of the Court of Claims -----END PRIVACY-ENHANCED MESSAGE-----