Translate
Text Highlighter

Bookmark

PDF

Share

Report a problem
AMICUS AI
Citation Codes
Equivalent Citations
citation codes
Docket Number
Attorney(S)
Judges
Are you a practicing lawyer?
Enhance your digital presence and reach by creating a Casemine profile.
Upload pleading to use the new AI search
Cites
Cited by
Citation Codes
Equivalent Citations
citation codes
Docket Number
Attorney(S)
Judges

United States of America, Plaintiff, v. 25.202 Acres of Land and building affixed to the land located in the Town of Champlain, Clinton County, New York: and Amexx Warehouse Company, Inc., d/b/a Duty Free Americas, Inc., et al., Defendants.

MEMORANDUM-DECISION AND ORDER

NORMAN MORDUE, District Judge

Three motions are pending in this condemnation case concerning property owned by defendant Amexx Warehouse Company, Inc., d/b/a Duty Free Americas, Inc. Defendant moves (Dkt. No. 42) to preclude the testimony of E. Anthony Casale, the Government's expert witness. The Government moves (Dkt. No. 43) to exclude the valuation testimony of defendant's appraiser Michael E. Ellis to the extent that Ellis relies on an income capitalization method of valuation. The Government also moves (Dkt. No. 44) to preclude valuation testimony by John A. Couri, Steven D. Zurcher, Simon Falic, Joseph W. Kearney, and any undisclosed valuation witnesses.

As did Magistrate Judge DiBianco, the Court refers to "25.202 Acres of Land and building affixed to the land located in the Town of Champlain, Clinton County, New York: and Amexx Warehouse Company, Inc., d/b/a Duty Free Americas, Inc., et al." as "defendant."

On September 10, 2009, Magistrate Judge DiBianco dismissed the motion (Dkt. No. 44) as moot (Dkt. No. 74); however, the parties sought clarification (Dkt. Nos. 75, 76), and the Report and Recommendation addresses the motion.

Upon referral, United States Magistrate Judge Gustave J. DiBianco issued a Report and Recommendation recommending that this Court:

1. deny defendant's motion (Dkt. No. 42) to preclude the valuation testimony of the Government's expert Casale;
2. grant the Government's motion (Dkt. No. 43) to preclude the testimony of Ellis to the extent that it relies on the income capitalization method of valuation; and
3. grant the Government's motion (Dkt. No. 44) preclude valuation testimony by John A. Couri, Steven D. Zurcher, Simon Falic, Joseph W. Kearney, and any undisclosed valuation witnesses to the extent that their testimony is based upon Ellis's income capitalization appraisal; and deny the motion to the extent that Simon Falic and Joseph W. Kearney may testify to the value of their property as owners of that property.

Defendant submitted an objection to the Report and Recommendation (Dkt. No. 85). The Government filed a response to the objection (Dkt. No. 87). Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C), this Court reviews de novo those parts of the Report and Recommendation to which defendant objects. Upon de novo review, the Court accepts and adopts Magistrate Judge DiBianco's excellent Report and Recommendation.

It is therefore

ORDERED that the Report and Recommendation (Dkt. No. 77) of United States Magistrate Judge Gustave J. DiBianco is accepted and adopted; and it is further

ORDERED that defendant's motion (Dkt. No. 42) to preclude the valuation testimony of the Government's expert E. Anthony Casale is denied; and it is further

ORDERED that the Government's motion (Dkt. No. 43) to preclude the testimony of Michael E. Ellis to the extent that it relies on the income capitalization method of valuation is granted; and it is further

ORDERED that the Government's motion (Dkt. No. 44) to preclude valuation testimony by John A. Couri, Steven D. Zurcher, Simon Falic, Joseph W. Kearney, and any undisclosed valuation witnesses is granted to the extent that all testimony based upon Michael E. Ellis's income capitalization appraisal is precluded, and denied to the extent that Simon Falic and Joseph W. Kearney, in their capacity as owners of the subject property, may testify to its value.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Use AI to get other relevant cases.

Comments

U.S. v. 25.202 ACRES OF LAND
(Mar 9, 2010)