Case Law Summaries

Casino Reinvestment Development Authority v. Lustgarten

• Opinion Date: July 5, 2000
• Real Property Law
• E-Mail

CONDEMNATION; EXPERTS—A court in a condemnation matter should allow expert testimony to rebut the credibility of the other party’s testifying expert.

An Atlantic City redevelopment authority (Authority) condemned a small vacant lot in a commercial/light industrial area of Atlantic City, approximately 1 block from the Atlantic City Convention Center. The condemnation proceedings took place approximately 11 months after the developers of the Convention Center received authorization to begin construction. A group of individual investors owned the vacant lot. At the condemnation proceedings, the Authority’s expert valued the property at $1,119,000 adjusted for the removal of existing concrete and asphalt. The owner’s expert however estimated the value of the property to be $3,240,000. The jury returned a verdict which valued the property at $3,132,000. The Authority appealed to the Appellate Division arguing nine separate issues, all of which were deemed to be meritless except for the argument that the lower court erred by preventing the Authority’s expert from rebutting the testimony of the owner’s expert. The Authority’s expert wanted to testify as to the weaknesses of the report and testimony of the owner’s expert, but the lower court held that issues regarding the insufficiency of the investigation by the owner’s expert were a matter for the jury to decide and any adverse testimony from the Authority’s expert is “really an opinion with respect to credibility.” In this regard, the lower court barred rebuttal testimony by the Authority’s expert. The Appellate Division recognized that a lower “court has wide discretion regarding the admissibility of proffered rebuttal evidence.” The owners expert’s “testimony, however, was neither cumulative nor repetitive of testimony offered in [the Authority’s] case ... Further, the proposed testimony both challenged and contradicted testimony produced for the defense. ... No special rules concerning rebuttal testimony apply to condemnation cases.” The Appellate Division held that “[t]he judge clearly erred when he held that the rebuttal evidence would do little more than call into question [the owner’s expert’s] credibility as it affected the weight of his opinion concerning the value of the Property.” It considered the lower court’s decision to exclude the Authority’s rebuttal testimony as an abuse of discretion. Therefore, the judgment was reversed and remanded for further proceedings.

Copyright ©2003. Meislik & Meislik. All rights reserved.