Exhibit C 10-23-12 Ron Gold Deposition

COURT OF COMMON PLEAS

ALLEGHENY COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA

ERIN RUBIN, :

a.k.a. ERIN RUBIN OCHOA, : Pa. Common Pleas FD-07-000190-008 Plaintiff, : v. : PACSES case no.665113116

MICHAEL RAMON OCHOA, : Defendant, pro se :

Written interrogatories for direct examination of expert witness, Ronald Gold, in preparation of 06-15-12 complex support hearing before H.O. Ferber

1. I would like all parties to stipulate that Exhibit A is a trial aid containing true

and accurate copies of the relevant sections of the material I will move to admit as Exhibits B-H.

2. I would like to call my expert witness, Mr. Ronald Gold by telephone at: 212-769-8906

(swear in)

3. Please, tell us your name, your company, and what you do for a living.

RONALD GOLD, ASA, MRICS, President • RONALD M. GOLD, INC. • INDEPENDENT NY STATE CERTIFIED GENERAL REAL ESTATE

APPRAISER

4. Were you hired by Mr. Ochoa in your professional capacity to appraise 631 Pelham Parkway North, in the Bronx, New York?

YES, I WAS HIRED IN JULY-AUGUST, 2011 TO APPRAISE 631 PELHAM PARKWAY NORTH, BRONX, NEW YORK (Appraisal Consultation Agreement dated: July 20, 2011, Date of Inspection: August 4, 2011)

5. How much were you paid?

I WAS PAID EIGHT THOUSAND ($8,000.00) DOLLARS in AUGUST, 2011.

6. Were any of your opinions influenced by the amount of compensation you received or dictated by Mr. Ochoa's request? ALL OF MY OPINIONS WERE ARRIVED AT INDEPENDENTLY AS A NY STATE CERTIFIED GENERAL REAL ESTATE APPRASIER WITH NO

INFLUENCE FROM MR. OCHOA. MR. OCHOA ASSISTED ME IN CONTACTING THE TENANT, NY STATE OMRDD (Kevin Meade).

7. Do you have Exhibit A in front of you? YES I DO

8. Do you have your 08-04-11 appraisal in front of you?

YES I DO

9. I would like to enter this appraisal as Exhibit B.

10. It is also found in the court record at:

09-15-11 Doc 275 Motion for Enforcement and Sanctions Ex.A 08-04-11 631 PPN Gold Appraisal

05-17-12 Doc 310 Motion for Reconsideration Ex. B 08-04-11 Gold Appraisal

11. Please, turn to pp.1-8 of the trial aid.

12. Is this a true and accurate copy of pp.135-142 of your 08-04-11 appraisal at

Ex.B?

YES IT IS

13. Does this accurately represent your professional credentials?

YES IT DOES

14. How long have you held these credentials?

I HAVE BEEN APPRAISING NYC REAL ESTATE SINCE 1980 I HAVE BEEN ON MY OWN AS AN INDEPENDENT REAL ESTATE APPRAISER SINCE 1983. I INCORPORATED RONALD M. GOLD, INC. IN APRIL OF 1985 (date of NY incorporation of Ronald M. Gold, Inc.)

15. Have your credentials ever been suspended or revoked? NO, MY CREDENTIALS HAVE NEVER BEEN SUSPENDED OR REVOKED.

16. Have you ever testified in court as an expert witness? How many times?

I HAVE TESTIFIED IN NY STATE SUPREME COURT (New York and Bronx Counties) APPROXIMATELY 20 TIMES. APPRAISALS HAVE BEEN PREPARED FOR AND ACCEPTED IN NY STATE SUPREME COURT IN NEW YORK, BRONX, WESTCHESTER, NASSAU AND SUFFOLK COUNTIES.

17. Do you have specialized knowledge or experience with regard to real estate appraisals? YES, I HAVE SPECIALIZED KNOWLEDGE AND EXPERIENCE IN COMMERCIAL AND RESIDENTIAL APPRAISALS IN THE CITY OF NEW YORK.

18. Did you apply your specialized knowledge to prepare this appraisal report?

YES, I APPLIED MY SPECIALIZED KNOWLEDGE OF THE BRONX AND RESIDENTIAL AND COMMERCIAL PROPERTIES AND SHORT AND LONG TERM LEASED PROPERTY IN THE CITY OF NEW YORK.

19. Do you believe that your specialized knowledge of real estate appraisal would assist this Court to understand the facts or issues related to this appraisal report? YES, I AM SURE OF IT.

20. I move to qualify Ronald Gold as my expert witness on the matter of real estate appraisal.

21. Please, describe the nature of the subject property.

How big is it? How is it being used? Is it subject to any lease?

THE SUBJECT IS A FORMER SINGLE-FAMILY RESIDENCE, ORIGINALLY ERECTED IN THE 1930’S AND ORIGINALLY UTILIZED AS A DOCTOR’S RESIDENCE WITH REPORTED DOCTOR’S OFFICES. IT

AS GUT RENOVATED CIRCA 2003-2005 BY THE CLIENT FOR A SPECIFIC USE DESIGNATED BY THE STATE OF NEW YORK OMRDD (later known as CRCDD) AND LEASED TO AN AGENCY OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK

(CRCDD, Kevin Meade, Executive Director) ON A PARTIAL NET LEASEHOLD FOR APPRPOXIMATLEY 20 YEARS AS OF 2006.

22. Please, turn to p.9 of the trial exhibit.

23. Is this a true and accurate copy of p.3 of your 08-04-11 appraisal at Ex.B?

YES IT IS.

24. What did you conclude was the market value of the property?

THE MARKET VALUE OF THE PROPERTY, AS OF THE DATE OF MY INSPECTION, AUGUST 4, 2011 IS $1,200,000.

25. Do you still endorse these opinions of the nature and value of the property to within a reasonable degree of professional certainty?

YES, THERE IS NO REASON NOT TO, BASED ON MY INSPECTION AND RESEARCH AND CORRESPONDENCE WITH THE TENANT. PLEASE NOTE THAT IT WAS THE TENANT (NY STATE CRCDD, KEVIN MEADE, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR) WHO CONDUCTED THE INSPECTION WITH ME AND PROVIDED THE NECESSARY INFORMATION (Lease and construction costs, etc.).

26. In preparing this appraisal, did Mr. Ochoa provide any previous appraisals? lease? or renovation documents for your review?

I BELIEVE WAS ABLE TO OBTAIN MR. GRECO’S APPRAISALS FROM MR. OCHOA.

27. Do you have Mr. Greco’s 09-17-08 appraisal, Mr. Greco’s 01-24-11 appraisal and the 06-29-06 Lease in front of you? YES, I HAVE THOSE DOCUMENTS IN FRONT OF ME.

28. I would like to enter these as Exhibits C, D and E.

29. They are also in the court record found at:

05-26-09 Doc 400 Plaintiff's Pre-Trial Exhibit Binder Pl.B.1a 09-17-08 Greco Appraisal

12-24-10 Doc 232 Reply to Answer Ex.C 09-17-08 631 PPN Greco Appraisal

02-17-11 Doc 243 Motion for Enforcement and Sanctions Ex.J 05-26-09 Doc 400 Pl.B.1a 09-17-08 631 PPN Greco

03-23-11 Doc 246 Answer and New Matter Ex. E 01-24-11 Greco Appraisal 07-01-11 Doc 266 Reply to Answer Ex.B 01-24-11 Greco Appraisal, 06-29-06

Lease

30. Please, turn to p.10 of the trial aid Ex.A.

31. Is this a true and accurate copy of p.2 of Mr. Greco’s 09-17-08 appraisal at Ex.C?

IT APPEARS TO BE. I ASSUME IT TO BE.

32. Does this indicate Mr. Greco's professional credentials? What are they?

NO, HIS CREDENTIALS ARE INCLUDED. HE DESCIRBES HIMSELF AS A “Certified Real Estate Appraiser.” He is listed with a license no. from NY State with the initial digits “45” . . . which indicate that he is A LICENSED RESIDENTIAL APPRAISER. HE IS NOT LICENSED TO APPRAISER COMMERCIAL PROPERTY IN THE STATE OF NEW YORK.

33. What did Mr. Greco conclude was the market value of the property on 09-17-08?

MR. GRECO’S OPINION OF VALUE OF THE SUBJECT PROPERTY AS OF SEPTEMBER 17, 2008 WAS $600,000 .

34. Please, turn to p.11 of the trial exhibit.

35. Is this a true and accurate copy of p.3 of Mr. Greco’s 01-24-11 appraisal at Ex.D?

IT APPEARS TO BE. I ASSUME IT TO BE.

36. Does this indicate Mr. Greco's professional credentials? What are they?

YES, HIS CREDENTIALS ARE NOT INCLUDED. MR. GRECO DESCRIBES HIMSELF AS A “CERTIFIED REAL ESTATE APPRAISER.” HIS NY STATE LICENSE BEGINS WITH THE DIGITS “45” WHICH MEANS HE IS A NY STATE LICENSED RESIDENTIAL APPRAISER. THEREFORE, HE IS NOT LICENSED TO APPRAISE COMMERCIAL PROPERTY IN THE STATE OF NEW YORK.

37. What did Mr. Greco conclude was the market value of the property on 01-24-11?

MR. GRECO’S OPINION OF VALUE OF THE SUBJECT PROPERTY AS OF JANUARY 24, 2011 IS $595,000.

38. What's the difference between Mr. Greco's credentials and yours?

MR. GRECO IS A NY STATE LICENSED RESIDENTIAL APPRAISER, WHICH ALLOWS HIM TO APPRAISE ONLY RESIDENTIAL PROPERTIES IN THE STATE OF NEW YORK . I AM A NY STATE CERTIFIED GENERAL REAL ESTATE APPRAISER, WHICH ALLOWS ME TO ESTIMATE VALUE ON COMMERCIAL AND RESIDENTIAL PROPERTIES IN THE STATE OF NEW YORK. I AM REQUIRED TO HAVE CONSIDERABLY MORE EDUCATION REQUIRMENTS AND EXPERIENCE REQUIREMENTS IN THE STATE OF NEW YORK FOR A CERTIFIED GENERAL REAL ESTATE APPRAISERS LICENSE. SIMILARLY, I AM REQUIRED TO HAVE MORE ON-GOING CONTINUING ED REQUIREMENTS EVERY TWO YEARS TO FULFILL THE TERMS OF MY LICENSE WITH THE STATE OF NY ON AN ON-GOING BASIS.

39. Did you incorporate any part of Mr. Greco's appraisals into your report? Why

not?

NO. IT WASN’T NECESSARY. THERE WAS NO INFORMATION IN THE REPORT WHICH WAS USEFUL OR REQUIRED OR SUPPORTIVE AS TO THE CONCLUSIONS OF VALUE, DUE TO THE PURPOSE OF HIS APPRAISAL, WHICH DID NOT TAKE INTO CONSIDERATION THE LONG-TERM LEASE WITH THE STATE OF NEW YORK OFFICE OF CRCDD, EVEN THOUGH MR. GRECO NOTED THAT THE PROPERTY WAS UNDER LEASE. IN ADDITION, HIS COMPARABLES WERE OF SINGLE-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL PROPERTIES, WHICH WERE INAPPROPRAITELY CHOSEN, IN LIGHT OF THE USE OF THE SUBJECT PROPERTY. 40. Did you obtain any other renovation documents on you own? When? How?

YES, I WAS IN DIRECT CONTACT WITH THE TENANT, THE NY STATE CRCDD, Kevin Meade, Executive Director. THIS NY STATE AGENCY (and Mr. Meade in particular) SUPERVISED THE GUT RENOVATION IN ACCORDANCE WITH REGULATIONS OF ITS AGENCY WITHIN THE STATE OF NEW YORK CRCDD FOR “SPECIAL PURPOSE MEDICAL/RESIDENTIAL FACILITIES.”

(p.12 of the trial exhibit may refresh your memory)

41. Please, turn to pp.13-20 of the trial aid Ex.A.

42. Are these true and accurate copies pp.57-64 of your 08-04-11 appraisal at Ex.B?

YES, THEY ARE.

43. Are these the renovations documents you received from Mr. Kevin Meade, Executive Director of the CRCDD? YES, THEY ARE

44. What is the “Total Approved Costs” for renovations by the NY OMRDD on p. 13? THE TOTAL APPROVED COSTS FOR RENOVATION BY THE NY OMRDD

(succeeded by NY STATE CRCDD) AMOUNT TO $1,105,612

45. What is the “CONTRACT SUM TO DATE” for renovations as of 09-01-09 on p.16? THE CONTRACT SUM IS $1,105,612.

46. Would such renovations increase the value of property?

YES, ABSOLUTELY, DUE TO THE STRINGENT REQUIREMENTS OF THIS NY STATE AGENCY, INCLUDING SPRINKLERS, NEW HVAC, NO. OF BATHROOMS, ROOFING MATERIALS, KITCHEN AND BATH FIXTURES, FLOORING, ETC.

47. Would an appraisal of this property be complete and accurate without these

renovation documents?

NO.

48. Did either of Mr. Greco's appraisals contain this information?

NO.

49. Were either of Mr. Greco's appraisals complete and accurate?

NO. THEY REFERRED TO A LEASE, BUT THERE WAS NO SUPPORTING INFORMATION OR COPIES OF SUCH LEASE. IN ADDITION, HIS COMPARABLE SALES WERE INAPPROPRIATELY SELECTED, IN THAT THEY ARE SINGLE-FAMILY HOMES, IN ALL PROBABILITY NOT NEARLY AS RENOVATED TO THE LEVEL OF THE SUBJECT PROPERTY. THERE WAS NO MENTION OF CONSIDERING A CAPITALIZATION OF INCOME APPROACH, WHICH IS REQUIRED IN THE CASE OF A LEASE ON THE SUBJECT PROPERTY, ACCORDING TO USPAP, THE FEDERAL “UNIFORM STANDARDS OF PROFESSIONAL APPRAISAL PRACTICE.” USPAP requires the mentioning that ALL 3 APPRAOCHES WERE CONSIDERED, AND WHY ANY OF THE APPROACHES WERE NOT UTILIZED.

50. Please, turn to pp.21-25 of the trial aid.

51. Is this a true and accurate copy of pp.72-76 of your 08-04-11 appraisal at Ex.B?

YES IT IS.

52. Are these true and accurate excerpts from the 06-29-06 Lease at Ex.E?

YES THEY ARE.

53. What does item 2 of the lease show on p.22 of the trial aid at Ex.A?

IT SHOWS FIXED RENT PAYMENTS FROM JULY OF 2007 THROUGH JULY 1, OF 2027. THE STARTING RENT IS $5,000 per month, WHICH IS EQUIVALENT TO $60,000 PER ANNUM, AND INCLUDES MOST OPERATING EXPENSES. THE ENDING RENT IS $8,767 PER MONTH, WHICH IS EQUIVALENT TO $105,204 IN THE FINAL YEAR OF THE LEASEHOLD.

54. Does this schedule showing annual 3% rent increases until 2025 increase or decrease the value of the property? IT INCREASES THE VALUE OF THE PROPERTY, IN THAT THE 3%

INCREASES INSURE THAT THE VALUE OF THE LEASE KEEPS UP WITH PROJECTED COST OF LIVING INCREASES (food, fuel, transportation, etc.)

55. Would an appraisal be true and accurate without taking into account this rent

schedule? NO. ABSOLUTELY NOT.

56. Did either of Mr. Greco's appraisals take into account this rent schedule?

NO. THEY DID NOT.

57. Are either of Mr. Greco's appraisals true and accurate?

IN MY OPNION, NO, THEY ARE NOT.

58. Please, read p.24, item 19, paragraph beginning "Upon Tenant's failure to cure any default…"

59. Please, read what you wrote in all caps at the top of the page.

“NY STATE OMRDD BACK-UP PAYMENTS IF THERE IS A DEFAULT BY THE TENANT”

60. Would such a "back-up" increase or decrease the probability of a default on the lease?

IT WOULD CONSIDERABLY DECREASE THE POSSIBILITY OF DEFAULT. 61. Would this increase or decrease risk?

IT WOULD DECREASE RISK.

62. Please turn to p.26 of the trial aid.

63. Is this a true and accurate copy of the 17th page of the lease at Ex.E, marked as p.16?

YES IT IS.

64. Please, read item 25, which is not an excerpt you included in your appraisal. SURVIVAL OF TENANT’S OBLIGATIONS AND DAMAGES

65. Can you calculate "liquidated damages" from the rent schedule at item 2 on

pp.22 of Ex.A, which is also p.2 of the lease at Ex.E? A “GUESSTIMATE” WOULD BE IN THE AMOUNT OF AT LEAST $600,000+, CONSIDERING RENT PAYMENTS AND OPERATING EXPENSES (Real Estate Taxes, Fuel, Insurance, Water & Sewer, Etc.) AND OTHER ASSORTED

COSTS . . . IN THIS CASE . . . . IF THE TENANT DEFAULTED ON THE FINAL 5-YEAR PERIOD OF THE LEASEHOLD (2023-2027). A FURTHER GUESSTIMATE WOULD BE $1,000,000+ IF THE TENANT DEFAULTED ON THE FINAL 10-YEAR PERIOD OF THE LEASEHOLD (2018-

2027).

66. Would $1,247,307.08 in liquidated damages increase or decrease the probability

of default by the Tenant?

IN MY OPINION ANYTHING IN EXCESS OF $1,000,000 WOULD

MARKEDLY DECREASE THE PROBABILITY OF DEFAULT BY THE TENANT.

67. Do your certifications give you professional expertise in Real Estate Law?

YES, MY LICENSED AS A NY STATE CERTIFIED GENERAL RE APPRAISER GIVES ME THE CREDENTIALS TO APPRAISE COMMERCIAL PROPERTY.

68. Are you qualified to assess the validity of the technical legal conditions of this lease? I CAN REVIEW A LEASE REGARDING ITS CONNECTION AND VALUATION EFFECTING THE SUBJECT PROPERTY FOR A SPECIFIC TENANCY WITH SPECIFIC RIGHTS. HOWEVER, PLEASE NOTE THAT I AM NOT AN ATTORNEY.

69. Does Mr. Greco’s CREA certification qualify him as a legal expert?

HE DOES NOT REPRESENT THAT HE HAS THE QUALIFICATIONS TO BE ABLE TO DO SO. HE IS NOT AN ATTORNEY. NOR DOES HE HAVE THE QUALIFICATIONS TO REVIEW LEASEHOLDS.

70. Please turn to pp.27-28 of the trial aid Ex.A.

71. Is this a true and accurate copy of pp.120-121 of your 08-04-11 appraisal at Ex.B?

YES IT IS.

72. What is this document? 73. IT IS A SHORT APPRAISAL SUMMARY BY THE STATE OF NEW YORK ON

THE SUBJECT PROPERTY, THE LAND AND THE IMPROVEMENTS TO THE LAND.

74. What is the NY OMRDD's assessed market value?

$250,0009 LAND VALUE . . . $595,000 TOTAL VALUE (LAND AND IMPROVEMENTS – THE SUBJECT BUILDING, “AS IS”, BEFORE RENOVATION)

75. What is the date of this valuation?

AUGUST, 2004.

76. Was this before or after the 02-25-10 NY OMRDD report for $1,105,612 in approved renovation costs? THIS WAS APPROXIMATELY 2 TO 3 YEARS BEFORE THE NY OMRDD REPORT WITH THE $1,105,612 APPROVED RENOVATION COST.

77. What is the asking price?

$750,000

78. Again, what is the current value of the property since renovation?

IN MY OPINION, AS OF AUGUST 4, 2011, ONE MILLION TWO HUNDRED THOUSAND ($1,200,000)

79. Please, turn to p.29 of the trial aid Ex.A.

80. Is this a true and accurate copy of p.93 of your 08-04-11 appraisal at Ex.B?

YES IT IS.

81. What is the capitalization of income approach to value?

IT IS THE APPROACH WHICH IS A RELIABLE METHOD IN ESTIMATING THE MARKET VALUE OF THE SUBJECT PROPERTY VIA ITS “INVESTMENT VALUE” . . . OR ITS CASH ON CASH RETURN . . . Value in Investment (Investment property) as opposed to VALUE IN USE ( Owner occupied property) 82. Would your appraisal be complete and accurate without calculating this?

NO. IT WOULD BE UNETHICAL AND AGAINST FEDERAL AND NY STATE REGULATIONS not to CONSIDER or USE THIS APPROACH IN THIS APPRAISAL OF THE SUBJECT PROPERTY, WITH A LEASE IN PLACE WITH AN AGENCY OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK.

83. Did either of Mr. Greco's appraisals calculate this?

NO

84. Were either of Mr. Greco’s appraisals complete and accurate?

NO

85. What is the formula which relates market value to annual income and capitalization rate?

THERE ISN’T ANY ONE FORMULA. RATHER, AN APPRAISER PROJECTS A STABILIZED INCOME AND OPERATING EXPENSE STATEMENT. THIS CONSISTS OF PROJECTED INCOME, PROJECTED VACANCY AND COLLECTION LOSSES AND PROJECTED (Actual or Projected) OPERATING EXPENSES . . . WHICH RESULTS IN

A PROJECTED NOI (Net Operating Income available to cover Debt Service). THIS NOI is CAPITALIZED (to be estimated by the appraiser, weighing risk and alternate forms of investment rates) INTO VALUE.

86. What capitalization rate did you use?

I UTILIZED A 6% CAPITALIZATION RATE.

87. How did you arrive at this rate?

I REVIEWED ALTERNATE FORMS OF INVESTMENT (Corporate Bonds, T Bill Rates, Cap Rates on Similar type properties from Sales in Northern Manhattan and The Bronx during 2011). I ALSO CONSIDERED THE “RISK” OF investing in a property under a long term lease with the STATE OF NEW YORK.

88. Does risk increase or decrease the capitalization rate?

THE HIGHER THE RISK, THE HIGHER THE CAP RATE . . . AND THE LOWER THE value . . .as capitalized from the NOI (Net Operating Income). E.G. a $100,000 NOI at 5% = $2,000,000 and a $100,000 NOIT AT 10% = $1,000,000

89. Does valuation increase or decrease if a higher capitalization rate is used?

VALUATION INCREASES WITH A LOWER CAPITALIZATION RATE.

90. Does valuation increase or decrease as annual rental income increases?

VALUATION SHOULD INCREASE AS ANNUAL RENTAL INCOME INCREASES. HOWEVER, IF EXPENSES ALSO INCREASE AT A SIMILAR RATE, VALUE MAY NOT increase. AS TIME MOVES ON, SAY GOING OUT 4 OR 5 OR 10 YEARS, IT GETS HARDER AND HARDER TO ESTIMATE PROJECTED EXPENSES (RE Taxes, Fuel, Electricity, etc.), DUE TO THE UNDERTAINTIES OF EXPENSES IN THE CITY OF NEW YORK.

91. According to rent schedule at item 2 of the lease, will this formula yield a higher market value on 07-01-12?

92. If all other factors remain the same, how much higher will the valuation be when

the monthly rent increases to $5,970.28 on 07-01-12?

VALUE SHOULD INCREASE. HOWEVER, THIS IS ONLY WHEN EXPENSES ARE STABLE.

93. If all other factors remain the same, what will the valuation be when the monthly rent increases to $8,767.56 on 07-01-25?

94. Did Mr. Ochoa hire you again after you wrote that appraisal?

HE HAS HIRED ME TO RESPOND TO THE INTERROGATORIES WHICH ARE THE SUBJECT OF THIS INQUIRY. HE ALSO ASKED THAT I BE PREPARED TO TESTIFY IN PERSON OR OVER THE PHONE SHOULD TESTIMONY BE REQUIRED. SEVERAL DATES WERE MENTIONED IN 2012. HOWEVER, THOSE DATES HAVE BEEN POSTPONED, UP UNTIL NOW. AS OF TODAY, OCTOBER 23RD, 2012, I UNDERSTAND THAT THE REAL ESTATE TODAY’S PREVIOUSLY SCHEDULED IN A PENNSYLVANIA COURT PROCEEDING WILL NOT BE COVERED.

95. To do what?

AGAIN, TO BE AVAILABLE FOR EXPERT TESTIMONY AND TO RESPOND TO THESE INTERROGATORIES.

96. How much were you paid?

IN ADDITION TO THE $8,000 FOR THE INITIAL APPRAISAL OF THE SUBJECT PROPERTY . . . IN AUGUST, 2011. I HAVE BEEN PAID AN ADDITIONAL APPROXIMATE $6,000.00 TO DATE, $4,000 IN DECEMBER, 2011 . . . TO REVIEW AND COMMENT UPON THE CICERO APPRAISAL, AND I WAS PAID $2,000 ON OR AROUND MAY 15, 2012 TO RESPOND TO INTERROGATORIES, AND REVIEW MY APPRAISAL AND THE GRECO APPRAISALS AND THE NY STATE CCRDD documents (leases and construction costs and estimates). NOTE: A BALANCE DUE OF $2,500.00 ADDITIONAL WILL BE DUE UPON RECEIPT OF THESE COMPLETED INTERROGATORIES, AS OF OCTOBER 23, 2012.

97. Do you have that 11-18-11 631 PPN Cicero Appraisal, John Cicero CV and your 12-15-11 comments in front of you?

YES. I DO.

98. Do you still endorse these 12-15-11 comments?

YES. I DO.

99. I would like to enter these as Exhibits F, G and H.

100. They are also found in the court record at:

12-12-11 Doc 284 Plaintiff's Pre-Trial Statement Ex.A 11-18-11 631 PPN Cicero Appraisal

12-12-11 Doc 284 Plaintiff's Pre-Trial Statement Ex.B John Cicero CV

12-20-11 Doc 285 Emergency Motion for Special Relief Ex.A 12-15-11 Gold Comments on Cicero Appraisal

05-17-12 Doc 310 Motion for Reconsideration Ex. C 12-15-11 Gold Comments on Cicero Appraisal

101. Looking through Mr. Cicero’s CV, does he appear to have any credentials which would qualify him as a legal expert? HE IS NOT A LEGAL EXPERT.

HE IS AN APPRAISAL EXPERT. HE HAS TESTIFIED BEFORE THE NY STATE SUPREME COURT. HE IS A NY STATE CERTIFIED GENERAL RE APPRAISER. HE IS ALSO HOLDS THE MAI (Member of the Appraisal Institute), THE CRE designation from the Counselors of Real Estate . . . AND THE FRICS

designation (Fellow of the Royal Institute of Chartered Surveyors).

102. Turning to Mr. Cicero’s appraisal, did Mr. Cicero's report include the complete lease on pp.81-106?

YES, IT APPEARS TO HAVE INCLUDED THE COMPLETE LEASE.

103. Did Mr. Cicero's report include the renovation documents you obtained from Mr.

Meade?

NO IT DID NOT INCLUDE ANY OF THESE DOCUMENTS.

104. Please, turn to p.30 of the trial aid Ex.A

105. Is this a true and accurate copy of p.60 ofMr. Cicero’s 11-18-11 appraisal at Ex.F?

YES IT IS.

106. Did Mr. Cicero employ the income capitalization approach?

YES HE DID.

107. Does this approach use the same formula as yours?

IT USES SIMILAR ELEMENTS. HOWEVER, THEY ARE NOT AS DETAILED AND NOT AS COMPLETE.

108. What market value did Mr. Cicero find after using the same formula as yours?

AS OF NOVEMBER, 2011, MR. CICERO ESTIMATES THE VALUE OF THE SUBJECT PROPERTY AT $660,000.

109. What capitalization rate did Mr. Cicero use? MR. CICERO UTILIZES A 9% CAPITALIZATION RATE.

110. Does this represent a higher or lower risk assessment than your appraisal?

IT REPRESENTS A MARKEDLY HIGHER RISK ASSESSMENT . . . SIMILAR TO THAT OF A HARLEM ROOMING HOUSE IN POOR CONDITION, WITH QUESTIONABLE OR UNRELIABLE TENANCIES.

111. Please turn to p.31 of the trial aid Ex.A.

112. Is this a true and accurate copy of p.2 of Mr. Cicero's 11-18-11 appraisal at Ex.F?

YES IT IS.

113. Please, read the last paragraph.

“THE CAPITALIZED VALUE IS CONSISTENT WITH THE VALUE OF THE UNDERLYING ASSET AS IF UNENCUMBERED, AS DISCUSSED EARLIER IN THE HIGHEST AND BEST USE ANALYSIS, WHICH IS REAONABLE GIVEN THE LACK OF SECURITY IN THE INCOME STREAM. CONSIDERING THE RISK ASSOCIATED WITH EARLY TERMINATION, WE BELIEVE THAT AN INVESTOR WOULD INEVITABLY CONSIDER THE VALUE OF THE UNDERLYING ASSET IN UNDERWRITING AN ACQUISITION. “THEREFORE THE MARKET VALUE OF THE LEASED FEE INTEREST IN THE SUBJECT PROPERTY, AS OF NOVEMBER 18, 2011 IS REASONABLY ESTIMATED TO HAVE BEEN: SIX HUNDRED SIXTY THOUSAND DOLLARS ($660,000)

114. Please, turn to p.32 of trial aid Ex.A.

115. Is this a true and accurate copy of p.2 of your comments on Mr. Cicero’s appraisal at Ex.H?

YES IT IS.

116. Please, read paragraph number 1.

“THE CICERO APPRAISAL ACKNOWLEDGES THE 20-YER LEASE OF THE SUBJECT PROPERTY BY CRCDD. IT ALSO SUGGESTS A LEASE TERMINATION IS PROBABLE. THIS IS INACCURATE AND NOT RELIABLE., IT IS HYPOTHETICAL. ON THIS PAGE THE APPRAISAL DOES NOT NOTE THAT THE TENANT (CRCDD/ OMRDD) SPENT OVER $1.1 MILLION ON THE RENOVATION OF THE SUBJECT. THERE IS NO SUBSTANTIATION OR IMPLICATION ANYWHERE BY THE TENANT THAT THE TENANT IS LEVING OR INTENDS TO LEAVE THE SUBJECT PROPERTY. RMG (Ronald M. Gold, ASA, MRICS) RECEIVED NO INFORMATION ON THAT AT THE DATE OF THE AUGUST 4, 2011 INSPECITON. RMG RECEIVED FULL RENOVATION COSTS FROM KEVIN MEADE (Executive Director) OFR CRCDD ON THE DATE OF THE AUGUST 4, 2011 INSPECTION. THERE IS NO REASON WHY THE CICERO REPORT OMITTED THOSE DETAILED CONSTRUCTION COSTS. “

117. Would the "probable termination" of the lease increase or decrease risk?

IT WOULD INCREASE RISK. THIS IS BECAUSE THE SUBJECT PROPERTY WAS RENOVATED IN CONFORMITY TO CERTAIN REQUIREMENTS OF THE STATE OF NY OFFICE OF CCRDD.

118. Would it increase or decrease the capitalization rate?

IT WOULD INCREASE THE CAPITALIZATION RATE, CONSEQUENTLY LOWERING THE VALUE. For Example: $ 70,000 @ 6% Capitalizaton Rate = $1,166,666 and $70,000 @ 9% Capitalization Rate = $777,777.

119. Would it increase or decrease the fair market value?

IT WOULD LOVER THE FAIR MARKET VALUE, VIA THE CAPITALIZATION OF INCOME APPROACH. IN ADDITION, AT THE SAME TIME, WITH THE SAME “MINDSET”, IT WOULD IN ALL PROBABILITY NEGATIVELY AFFECT THE SALES COMPARISON APPROACH AS WELL (CONSIDERING RECENT SALES OF SIMILAR TYPE

PROPERTIES IN THE SUBJECT AREA).

120. Did you find any reliable data in your documents or Mr. Cicero's report indicating that termination is probable? \NONE. THESE COMMENTS ON “PROBABLE TERMINATION OF THE LEASE” WERE FROM MR. CICERO.

121. Did Mr. Cicero's report include the $1.1 million renovation documents?

NO, IT DID NOT.

122. Would a $1.1 million dollar investment by the NY OMRDD make termination more or less probable?

IN MY OPINION, IT WOULD BE HIGHLY UNLIKELY FOR NY STATE OMRDD to terminate this LEASE AFTER SUCH A COSTLY AND METICULOUS GUT RENOVATION. IT WOULDN’T MAKE SENSE.

123. Did Mr. Cicero's appraisal calculate "liquidated damages"?

NO, IT DID NOT.

124. Again, would $1,247,307.08 in liquidated damages make termination more or less probable?

IT CERTAINLY WOULD HAVE MADE LEASE TERMINATION LESS PROBABLE.

125. Please, turn to p.33 of trial aid Ex.A.

126. Is this a true and accurate copy of p.60 ofMr. Cicero’s 11-18-11 appraisal at Ex.F?

YES IT IS.

127. Please, read the last sentence of the partial top paragraph, beginning “Mr. Sozio

was of the opinion that...” “MR. SOZIO WAS OF THE OPINION THAT GIVEN THE SUBJECT’S RISK PROFIE IT WOULD TRADE AT A CAP RATE ABOVE 10%.”

128. Please turn to p.34 of trial aid Ex.A.

129. Is this a true and accurate copy of p.11 of your 12-15-11 comments on Mr. Cicero’s appraisal at Ex.H?

YES IT IS.

130. Please, read your comment 35.

“THE CICERO REPORT SEEMS TO PLACE ITS GREATEST RELIANCE ON A REAL ESTATER BROKER! A MR. SOZIO OF MASSEY KNAKAL. “Mr. Sozio was of the oinion that given the subject’s risk profile it would trade at a cap rate above 10%.”

131. Do you rely on any realtor's opinions to assess risk or capitalization rate?

NO. THE OPINIONS IN MY APPRAISAL REPORT REGARDING VALUATION ARE MINE ALONE.

132. Does Mr. Cicero provide any of the data relied upon by Mr. Sozio?

NO. NONE.

133. Please turn to p.35 of trial aid Ex.A.

134. Is this a true and accurate copy of p.138 of your 08-04-11 appraisal at Ex.B?

YES IT IS.

135. Please, read the quote you made to the New York Observer.

“I DON’T TRUST ANYONE OR ANYTHING EXCEPT PUBLIC RECORDS, SIGNED LEASES AND CORROBORATED INFORMATION.”

136. Did you use that standard in calculating the capitalization rate?

YES. I DID.

137. Did Mr. Cicero use that standard in calculating the capitalization rate?

I DON’T BELIEVE SO. I BELIEVE HE USED UNSUPPORTED HEARSAY.

138. Do you have anything you would like to add to your testimony?

YES. I THINK IT IS ASTOUNDING TO IMPLY THAT THE STATE

OF NY WOULD DEFAULT ON A LONG-TERM LEASE FOR A

PROPERTY IT HAS GUT RENOVATED FOR ITS OWN USE . . .

WITH METICULOUS CARE IN ITS RENOVATIONS, AS PER ITS

OWN SPECIFICATIONS. TO IMPLY THAT THE STATE OF NY

WOULD GO “BANKRUPT” IS NOT CREDIBLE. THIS

EXTRAORDINARY ASSUMPTION (not contained in the Cicero

Report . . . nor is any “Hypothetical Condition” mentioned)

DOES NOT MAKE FOR A CREDIBLE APPRAISAL, AND IS

THEREFORE IN VIOLATION OF FEDERAL AND NY STATE

USPAP (“Uniform Standards of Professional Appraisal

Practice”).

139. Thank you. My witness is now available for cross-examination.