Cash Equivalence

A price expressed in terms of cash, as distinguished from a price expressed totally or partly in terms of the face amounts of notes or other securities that cannot be sold at their face amounts. Calculating the cash-equivalent price requires an appraiser to compare transactions involving atypical financing to transactions involving comparable properties financed at typical market terms.

Value As Is

The value of specific ownership rights to an identified parcel of real estate as of the effective date of the appraisal; relates to what physically exists and is legally permissible and excludes all assumptions concerning hypothetical market conditions or possible rezoning.

Prospective Value Opinion

A forecast of the value expected at a specified future date. A prospective value opinion is most frequently sought in connection with real estate projects that are proposed, under construction, or under conversion to a new use, or that have not achieved sellout or a stabilized level of long-term occupancy at the time the appraisal report is written.

Prospective Value Upon Reaching Stabilized Occupancy

The value of a property as of a point in time when all improvements have been physically constructed and the property has been leased to its optimum level of long-term occupancy. At such point, all capital outlays for tenant improvements, leasing commissions, marketing costs, and other carrying charges are assumed to have been incurred.

Exposure Time and Marketing Time

Exposure Time

Under Paragraph 3 of the Definition of Market Value, the value opinion presumes that “A reasonable time is allowed for exposure in the open market”. Exposure time is defined as the length of time the property interest being appraised would have been offered on the market prior to the hypothetical consummation of a sale at the market value on the effective date of the appraisal. Exposure time is presumed to precede the effective date of the appraisal.

The reasonable exposure period is a function of price, time and use. It is not an isolated opinion of time alone. Exposure time is different for various types of property and under various market conditions. As noted above, exposure time is always presumed to precede the effective date of appraisal. It is the length of time the property would have been offered prior to a hypothetical market value sale on the effective date of appraisal. It is a retrospective opinion based on an analysis of past events, assuming a competitive and open market. It assumes not only adequate, sufficient and reasonable time but adequate, sufficient and a reasonable marketing effort. Exposure time and conclusion of value are therefore interrelated.

Based on our review of national investor surveys, discussions with market participants and information gathered during the sales verification process, a reasonable exposure time for the subject property at the value concluded within this report would have been approximately nine (9) months. This assumes an active and professional marketing plan would have been employed by the current owner.

Marketing Time

Marketing time is an opinion of the time that might be required to sell a real property interest at the concluded market value level. Marketing time is presumed to start during the period immediately after the effective date of an appraisal. (Marketing time is subsequent to the effective date of the appraisal and exposure time is presumed to precede the effective date of the appraisal). The opinion of marketing time uses some of the same data analyzed in the process of developing a reasonable exposure time opinion as part of the appraisal process and it is not intended to be a prediction of a date of sale or a one-line statement.

We believe, based on the assumptions employed in our analysis, as well as our selection of investment parameters for the subject, that our value conclusion represents a price achievable within nine (9) months.

Legal Description

The subject site is identified by Queens County as Block: 15841, Lots: 3. The legal description was not provided.

REGIONAL MAP

[OMITTED]

NEW YORK CITY REGIONAL ANALYSIS

Regional Area Overview

New York City (NYC), a leading world financial, business and trade center, is also the most culturally diverse, densely populated, and wealthiest (in terms of total personal income) city in the United States. The “City” has continued to reinvent itself over the years, from the East Coast’s busiest harbor, to a multifaceted manufacturing and distribution center, and now a global leader in the provision of services including financial, legal, media and entertainment. The borough of Manhattan, or New York County, forms the central political, financial and cultural core of the City and is the economic growth engine of the Greater New York Region. The City’s other boroughs are the Bronx, Brooklyn, Queens, and Staten Island (otherwise known as Bronx, Kings, Queens, and Richmond Counties). Located in the southeastern portion of New York State at the mouth of the Hudson River, NYC covers 309 square miles and is home to over 8.1 million people, or 42 percent of New York State’s total population.

The five boroughs of NYC consolidated in 1898, yet each has retained unique characteristics. Manhattan, home to 19 percent of the City’s population, is where three-fourths of the City’s office-using employees work, primarily in the skyscrapers of the Midtown and Downtown business districts. The other four boroughs are commonly referred to as the “outer boroughs” and are generally more residential in nature. They also have strong, albeit significantly smaller economies than that of Manhattan.

Market Outlook

Although New York City (NYC) is experiencing strong employment and income growth, a peaking residential real estate market, slower growth in key industries, and high business costs will keep New York City as a steady but below average performer.

· Strong Wall Street performance and high levels of national and international tourism have helped drive the NYC economy, as a broad range of sectors have benefited in the near term from stronger income growth.

· In 2005, New York City saw record levels of real estate investment activity, including the $1.7 billion sale of the MetLife Building, which was the largest building transaction in U.S. history.

· Recent employment growth has boosted the housing market and as a result the NYC economy. Currently, the New York Metro area is experiencing a record pace of residential permitting. Although household formation growth has been stagnant, there are a number of other factors driving demand, including empty nesters, international buyers, and second-home buyers. Solid income growth and favorable financing have fueled the housing boom, but slowing job growth and interest rate increases could lead to slowing or stagnant price gains or even a pricing correction.

· Recently, there has been some evidence of a slowdown in New York City’s middle-market housing sales. According to Miller Samuel, Inc. both the average and median sales prices in the Manhattan market fell in the third quarter of 2005.

Market Definition

New York City (NYC) consists of five counties at the mouth of the Hudson River in the southeast area of New York State. The borough of Manhattan, or New York County, forms the central political, financial and cultural core of the City and is the economic growth engine of the Greater New York Region. The City’s other boroughs are Brooklyn, Queens, Staten Island, and the Bronx (otherwise known as Kings, Queens, Richmond, and Bronx Counties, respectively). The area’s vast mass transit infrastructure closely connects the five boroughs as well as the surrounding suburban areas, which combined with NYC form the Greater New York Region. This region covers 21 counties in the southeastern section of New York State, southwestern corner of Connecticut, and Central and Northern New Jersey.

GREATER NEW YORK CITY REGION COUNTIES

[OMITTED]

Current Trends

New York City, and particularly Manhattan, is one of the world’s largest and premier economies. Businesses in NYC benefit from the synergies created from the presence of more than 200,000 companies, access to consumers and investment capital, and the city’s attractive quality of life. Manhattan, which accounts for over 63 percent of NYC’s total employment, is the regional economic engine.

Within Manhattan, Midtown is the nation’s largest Central Business District and home to a diverse base of Finance, Insurance, and Real Estate (FIRE) industries and Fortune 500 companies. New York City houses the headquarters of 43 Fortune 500 firms, with 42 of these headquarters located in Manhattan. Manhattan has the largest office inventory in the nation, with roughly 390 million square feet. Wall Street, the heart of the City’s financial district downtown, is also home to the New York Stock Exchange, American Stock Exchange, the NASDAQ and Commodities Exchange, and the Federal Reserve Bank of New York.

In addition to the strength of the FIRE industries, strong levels of both domestic and international tourism has driven robust employment growth in NYC’s hospitality, food and beverage, and retail industries. NYC is renowned for its cultural activities, arts and entertainment, restaurants, and shopping, as well as being a leading center for the sciences, health care, and higher education.

Economics

Four years after the devastation of September 11th, the New York City economy is healthy, although employment remains about 4 percent below its peak at year-end 2000.

· NYC’s Gross Metro Product (GMP) grew at a 4.4 percent rate in 2005.

· From 1995 to 2005, NYC’s GMP grew at an average annual rate of 3.9 percent, slightly below the nation’s top 100 largest metro areas’ (Top 100) annualized average of 4.0 percent.

· Through 2010, NYC’s forecasted GMP growth of 2.1 percent annually is expected to trail the Top 100’s projection of 3.0 percent.

REAL GROSS PRODUCT GROWTH BY YEAR

NYC vs. Top 100 Metros*

[OMITTED]

NYC’s 2005 employment growth rate of 1.1 percent trailed the Top 100’s 1.3 percent growth rate.

· From 1995 through 2005, NYC’s average annual employment growth rate of 0.7 percent significantly lagged the nation’s top 100 average annual employment growth of 1.4 percent

· Although yearly employment growth was positive from 1995 to 2000, negative employment growth from 2001 to 2003 contributed to NYC’s slow 10-year growth rate.

· Employment growth has turned positive since 2003, but the projected average annual growth rate through 2010 of 0.9 percent will continue to trail the projected Top 100 average of 1.5 percent.

NYC’s unemployment rate has been consistently higher than the Top 100 rate, reaching as high as 10.2 percent in 1992 and more recently as high as 7.8 percent in 2002 and 2003.

· In 2005, average unemployment rate in NYC fell to 5.5 percent from 6.6 percent in 2004. The Top 100 average unemployment rate in 2005 was 5.0 percent.

· Through 2010, NYC’s employment rate is projected to range between 5.3 and 5.6 percent.

TOTAL EMPLOYMENT GROWTH AND UNEMPLOYMENT RATE BY YEAR

NYC vs. Top 100 Metros

[OMITTED]

NYC’s employment base has a far higher concentration of office-using employment than the Top 100.

· NYC is more heavily weighted in the Education & Health Services and Financial Activities sectors than the Top 100 overall.

· The region is less represented in the Construction, Manufacturing, and Trade, Transportation & Utilities sectors.

EMPLOYMENT BY SECTOR

NYC vs. Top 100 Metros

2005 Estimates

[OMITTED]

Demographics

New York City is the most heterogeneous city in the nation, if not the world. With a median age of 35.9 years, NYC is on par with the Top 100 median age of 35.9 years, but slightly below the U.S. median of 36.2 years. NYC is relatively well educated compared to the national average,

with 27.2 percent of its population having a Bachelor degree or better compared with 24.6 percent of the U.S. On the other hand, NYC is relatively less educated than the Top 100, with 28.0 percent of its population with a Bachelor degree or better. Although NYC and the U.S. have similar levels of affluence, with 27.9 and 28.4 percent of the population, respectively, having an annual income of $75,000 or higher, both trail the Top 100, which has 32.9 percent of its households having an annual income of $75,000 or higher.

DEMOGRAPHIC CHARACTERISTICS

NYC vs. Top 100 Metro Areas and U.S.

2004 Estimates

Characteristic	New York City			Top 100 Metro Areas			U.S.
Median Age (years)	35.9			35.9			36.2
Average Annual Household Income	$	65,900		$	71,400		$	64,800
Median Annual Household Income	$	43,800		$	52,900		$	47,800
Households by Annual Income Level:
<$25,000	31.5		%	22.1		%	24.9		%
$25,000 to $49,999	24.2		%	25.6		%	27.4		%
$50,000 to $74,999	16.4		%	19.4		%	19.3		%
$75,000 to $99,999	10.0		%	12.5		%	11.5		%
$100,000 plus	17.9		%	20.4		%	16.9		%
Education Breakdown:
< High School	27.7		%	18.5		%	19.5		%
High School Graduate	24.5		%	26.0		%	28.4		%
College < Bachelor Degree	20.5		%	27.6		%	27.5		%
Bachelor Degree	15.7		%	17.8		%	15.7		%
Advanced Degree	11.5		%	10.2		%	8.9		%

Source: Claritas, Inc., Cushman & Wakefield Analytics

According to the results of the 2000 Census, NYC was one of the nation’s few cities to experience an increase in its population during the 1990s. In fact, NYC is the only major city in the nation that has a larger population than it did in 1950.

· NYC’s current population totals over 8.1 million, with every borough except for Staten Island having a population of greater than one million.

· Brooklyn, with nearly 2.5 million people, has the largest population of the five boroughs, while Manhattan is the most densely populated area in NYC.

· Between 1995 and 2005, NYC’s annual population growth averaged 0.6 percent, which is half the Top 100 annual average of 1.2 percent.

· NYC’s average annual growth through 2010 is forecast to slow to 0.2 percent, substantially below the 1.0 percent forecast for the Top 100 metro areas.

POPULATION GROWTH BY YEAR

NYC vs. Top 100 Metros

[OMITTED]

Manhattan’s population of 1.5 million people is densely concentrated throughout, with the exception of Midtown West and west of City Hall. It is most densely populated around Central Park on both the Upper East Side and the Upper West Side, as well as from 20th Street to the East River, east of The Bowery and north of Fulton Street. In the Bronx, lower population concentrations are located in the northern parts of the borough. The largest population concentration in Queens is in its center within the communities of Woodside, Rego Park, Forest Hills, Maspeth, Elmhurst, and Jackson Heights, as well as Ridgewood and Glendale, which border Brooklyn. Staten Island has a fairly even population concentration throughout the borough and is generally less dense than the rest of the City.

ANNUALIZED POPULATION GROWTH BY COUNTY

New York City

Population (000’s)	1995	2005	2010 Forecast	Annual Growth 95-05		Annual Growth 05-10
United States	266,664	296,710	310,171	1.1	%	0.9	%
Top 100 MSAs	170,444	192,458	202,723	1.2	%	1.0	%
New York City	7,633	8,124	8,202	0.6	%	0.2	%
Bronx County	1,262	1,372	1,405	0.8	%	0.5	%
Kings County	2,373	2,478	2,481	0.4	%	0.0	%
New York County	2,075	2,244	2,255	0.8	%	0.1	%
Queens County	410	468	489	1.3	%	0.9	%
Richmond County	1,514	1,563	1,573	0.3	%	0.1	%

Source: Economy.com, Cushman & Wakefield Analytics

In 2005, NYC’s median household income was $43,800, which is 17.2 and 9.1 percent lower than that of the Top 100 and U.S., respectively.

· Between 1995 and 2005, NYC’s 3.4 percent average annual growth in median household income was greater than the Top 100’s average of 3.0 percent.

· Through 2010, NYC’s median household income growth rate is projected at 3.3 percent annually, remaining slightly above the Top 100’s projected annual growth rate of 3.2 percent.

Nearly all of Manhattan’s zip codes below 96th Street have median household incomes above the national median. The most affluent concentrations of households border Central Park on Manhattan’s West Side between West 77th and West 91st Streets, and on the East Side along Fifth, Park and Madison Avenues between East 60th and East 96th Streets. Other affluent pockets include the southern tip of Manhattan at Battery Park City and the communities surrounding the financial district, such as TriBeCa. In contrast, the area north of Central Park as well as portions of the Lower East Side are where residents with the lowest median household incomes reside.

MEDIAN HOUSEHOLD INCOME DISTRIBUTION BY ZIP CODE

NYC, 2005 Estimates

[OMITTED]

Regional Summary / Market Competitiveness

Improved Wall Street performance and healthy tourism have recently boosted New York City’s economic outlook. Longer term, the economic legacy of 9/11 and a modest pace of expansion will likely prevent the metro area from returning to its pre-recession peak for several more years.

· NYC’s competitive strengths include its high per capita income, limited exposure to manufacturing, high level of international immigration, and its role as the financial capital of the nation.

· The market’s weaknesses include high business costs and the city’s high level of domestic out-migration.

LOCAL AREA MAP

[OMITTED]

LOCAL AREA ANALYSIS

General Information

The Borough of Queens is situated east of Manhattan. The two neighboring boroughs are separated by the East River. The East River crossings connecting Manhattan and Queens include the 59th Street Bridge, the Triboro Bridge and the Queens Midtown Tunnel. These are all very congested crossings that are extensively used by commuters and commercial traffic, with volume being heaviest during the morning and afternoon rush hours. Multiple subway lines connect the two boroughs, with the subway tunnels located beneath the East River. Bus Service is available throughout the boroughs.

The highway network in Queens generally runs throughout the borough. The Cross Island Parkway extends north/south across the eastern end of the borough. The Van Wyck and the Clearview Expressway also extend north/south across the borough. The Belt Parkway extends east/west across the southern portion of the borough into Brooklyn. The Jackie Robinson (Interborough) extends east/west across the borough and terminates into Brownsville, Brooklyn. The Long Island Expressway also extends east/west across the borough. Finally, the Interboro Parkway is located on the eastern end of Brooklyn.

Arverne is located in southern Queens just south of Kennedy Airport. The subject area is generally referred to as part of the Far Rockaways. Arverne is bordered to the east by Far Rockaway, to the west by Hammels and Seaside, to the south by the Atlantic Ocean and to the north by Somerville and Grass Hasscock Channel.

This part of Arverne is predominantly residential with some commercial uses located along Rockaway Beach Boulevard. Residential areas are located on the side streets outside of the commercial districts. The residential areas within this area are developed with single-family, attached and detached houses, most of which are kept in average condition. To the east of the subject there has been some new construction of single and multi-family modular homes. The area is in the process of being developed with several residential projects. As these projects are completed and sold out demand for development sites in the area is expected to increase.

There are few multi-story residential developments in other parts of Far Rockaway. There is limited commercial development located on Edgemere Avenue and Rockaway Beach Boulevard. These retail and business establishments service the needs of the local residents. Because of its proximity to Kennedy Airport and the Atlantic Ocean there are several hotels and motels located in the Rockaway area.

The subject is located in a mixed-use industrial and residential district in the southern section of Queens, which is influenced by the proximity to Kennedy Airport and the Atlantic Ocean. The improvements in the immediate area are generally residential with some commercial and industrial uses located along the main boulevards.

The subject is located along the N/E/C of Rockaway Beach Boulevard and Beach 49th Street.

Access to the subject is average. The main boulevards in the local area provide two-way traffic flow. In the residential areas, the streets are generally one way. Main thoroughfares such as Rockaway Beach Boulevard, Edgemere Avenue and the Rockaway Freeway provide access to the Cross Bay Boulevard which leads to the Van Wyck Expressway, Grand Central Parkway and the Belt Parkway.

These roads connect with each of the major roadways in the Brooklyn-Queens area. LaGuardia Airport is located to the north in the northern part of Queens and provides passenger and cargo traffic. Kennedy Airport is located nearby just north of the subject in the southern part of Queens. Overall, the subject’s area is a stable and established mixed-use area which should continue to attract industrial uses in the future.

Conclusion

The subject property is a smaller industrial site with convenient access to the major arteries within Queens and Brooklyn. The local area is going through a resurgence as several residential projects are being developed in the area.

However, the subject is a very small site which is influenced by the neighboring industrial and commercial uses. As such, we would not anticipate a significant impact positive or negative to the subject site as a result of the ongoing residential development in the local area.

Although the subject is located in a mixed-use neighborhood it’s proximity to JFK airport makes it a desirable industrial location. We conclude that the subject will be competitive in the marketplace into the foreseeable future.

SITE DESCRIPTION

Location:	N/W/C of Rockaway Beach Blvd. & Beach 49th Street Arverne, Queens County, NY 11208 The subject is located along the N/E/C of Rockaway Beach Boulevard and Beach 49th Street.

Shape:	Rectangular

Topography:	Level

Land Area:	0.07 acres 3,145 square feet

Frontage, Access, Visibility:	The subject property has good access, good visibility and good frontage on the following streets: Beach 49th Street: 106.72 feet frontage Rockaway Beach Blvd: 30.11 feet frontage

Soil Conditions:	We did not receive nor review a soil report. However, we assume that the soil’s load-bearing capacity is sufficient to support existing and/or proposed structure(s). We did not observe any evidence to the contrary during our physical inspection of the property. Drainage appears to be adequate.

Utilities:	All Available

Site Improvements:	The site improvements include asphalt paved parking areas, curbing, signage, landscaping, yard lighting and drainage.

Land Use Restrictions:	We were not given a title report to review. We do not know of any easements, encroachments, or restrictions that would adversely affect the site’s use. However, we recommend a title search to determine whether any adverse conditions exist.

Flood Zone:	The subject property is located in flood zone C.

Flood Zone Description:	FEMA Zone C: Areas outside of a 100-year flood hazard.

FEMA Map & Date	360497-0072C, dated May 18, 1992

Wetlands:	We were not given a Wetlands survey. If subsequent engineering data reveal the presence of regulated wetlands, it could materially affect property value. We recommend a wetlands survey by a competent engineering firm.

Seismic Hazard:	The site is not located in a Special Study Zone as established by California’s Alquist-Priolo Geological Hazards Act.

Hazardous Substances:	We observed no evidence of toxic or hazardous substances during our inspection of the site. However, we are not trained to perform technical environmental inspections and recommend the services of a professional engineer for this purpose.

Overall Functionality:	The subject site is functional for its current use.

Location Rating:

After considering all of the locational aspects of the subject, including regional and local accessibility as well as overall visibility, Cushman & Wakefield, Inc. has concluded that the location of this property is good.

Site Map

[OMITTED]

Americans With Disabilities Act

The Americans With Disabilities Act (ADA) became effective January 26, 1992. We have not made, nor are we qualified to make a compliance survey of this property to determine whether or not it is in conformity with the requirements of the ADA. It is possible that a compliance survey could reveal that the property is not in compliance with one or more of the requirements of the Act. If so, this fact could have a negative effect upon the value of the property. Since we have not been provided with the results of a survey, we did not analyze the results of possible non-compliance.

Hazardous Substances

We are not aware of any potentially hazardous materials (such as formaldehyde foam insulation, asbestos insulation, radon gas emitting materials, or other potentially hazardous materials) which may have been used in the construction of the improvements. However, we are not qualified to detect such materials and urge the client to employ an expert in the field to determine if such hazardous materials exist.

REAL PROPERTY TAXES AND ASSESSMENTS

Current Property Taxes

The property is subject to the taxing jurisdiction of the City of New York. According to the New York City Assessor’s office, the 2005/2006 assessments for the property (Block: 15841, Lots: 3) are as follows:

Current Property Taxes

According to the local assessor’s office, the taxes are current. The assessment and taxes for the property are presented below:

PROPERTY TAX DATA (2005/2006)

	Actual		Transitional
Assessed Value
Land:	$	14,850	$	11,430
Improvements:	0		0
Total:	$	14,850	$	11,430
Exemption:	$	0	$	0
Taxable Assessment:	$	14,850	$	11,430

Taxable Assessment			$	11,430
Tax Rate			0.1131
Total Property Taxes			$	1,292

Property Taxes per Square Foot of land			$	0.42

Total taxes for the property are $1,292, or $0.42 per square foot. Based on our experience with industrial buildings in Queens County, we conclude that this is a market oriented tax liability for a property of this kind. The relatively high tax per square foot figure reflects the significant land associated with the property. We project that the subject’s tax liability will grow 3.0 percent per annum over the analysis period.

ZONING

The property is zoned C8-1 by the City of New York. The following is a brief description of the C8-1 zoning district:

C8 General Service District

Automotive and other heavy commercial services are provided for in C8 districts. C8 districts form a bridge between commercial and manufacturing uses, and are appropriate for heavy uses which are land consuming but not labor intensive. These districts are mainly mapped along major traffic arteries where concentrations of automotive uses have developed. Performance standards are imposed for certain uses in Use Groups 11 A and 16.

Typical uses are automobile showrooms, automotive service facilities and warehouses. Housing is not permitted.

Parking requirements vary with districts and use. Automotive uses in C8-1 to C8-3 districts require substantial parking.

The C8-1 permits a maximum floor area ratio (FAR) that governs building sizes of 2.4 times the lot area for community buildings. In the Site Description section of the report, we estimated that the subject site contains approximately 3,145 square feet of land area. The maximum allowable commercial FAR is 1.0. However, with a community facility the maximum allowable FAR of increases to 2.4 in the C8-1 zone which equates to 316,324 square feet of building area.

The C8-1 zone is made specifically for uses similar to the subject which require a large parking component. These facilities are generally in demand by shipping companies, mail service carriers, trucking firms, car rental agencies and transportation services for government agencies.

However, the majority of industrial buildings in this zone are single story industrial buildings with high ceiling heights and only a portion of second floor office area. In reality, many of the sites in the local area within a C8-1 zone are not developed to anywhere near the maximum building area as owners want to satisfy parking requirements for their staff or tenants.

According to City records, the existing industrial use is a permitted use in this zone. We are not experts in the interpretation of complex zoning ordinances but the proposed use of the site appears to be a legal, conforming use based on our review of public information. However, the determination of compliance is beyond the scope of a real estate appraisal.

We know of no deed restrictions, private or public, that further limit the subject property’s use. The research required to determine whether or not such restrictions exist, however, is beyond the scope of this appraisal assignment. Deed restrictions are a legal matter and only a title examination by an attorney or title company can usually uncover such restrictive covenants. Thus, we recommend a title search to determine if any such restrictions do exist.

Zoning Map

[OMITTED]

HIGHEST AND BEST USE

Definition Of Highest And Best Use

According to The Dictionary of Real Estate Appraisal, Fourth Edition (2002), a publication of the Appraisal Institute, the highest and best use is defined as:

The reasonably probable and legal use of vacant land or an improved property, which is physically possible, appropriately supported, financially feasible, and that results in the highest value. The four criteria the highest and best use must meet are legal permissibility, physical possibility, financial feasibility, and maximum profitability.

Highest And Best Use Criteria

We have evaluated the site’s highest and best use both as currently improved and as if vacant. In both cases, the property’s highest and best use must meet four criteria. That use must be (1), legally permissible (2) physically possible, (3) financially feasible, and (4) maximally productive.

Legally Permissible

The first test concerns permitted uses. According to our understanding of the zoning ordinance, noted earlier in this report, the site may legally be improved with structures that accommodate office, light industrial, and warehouse uses. Aside from the site’s zoning regulations, we are not aware of any legal restrictions that limit the potential uses of the subject.

Physically Possible

The second test is what is physically possible. As discussed in the “Site Description,” section of the report, the site’s size, soil, topography, etc. do not physically limit its use. The subject site is of adequate shape and size to accommodate almost all urban and suburban uses.

Financial Feasibility and Maximal Productivity

The third and fourth tests are what is financially feasible and what will produce the highest net return. After analyzing the physically possible and legally permissible uses of the property, the highest and best use must be considered in light of financial feasibility and maximum productivity. For a potential use to be seriously considered, it must have the potential to provide a sufficient return to attract investment capital over alternative forms of investment. A positive net income or acceptable rate of return would indicate that a use is financially feasible.

Highest and Best Use of Site As Though Vacant

Considering the subject site’s physical characteristics and location, as well as the state of the local market, it is our opinion that the Highest and Best Use of the subject site as though vacant is a commercial or industrial building developed to the highest density possible for a specific user.

VALUATION PROCESS

Methodology

There are three generally accepted approaches available in developing an opinion of value: the Cost, Sales Comparison and Income Capitalization approaches. We have considered each in this appraisal to develop an opinion of the market value of the subject property. In appraisal practice, an approach to value is included or eliminated based on its applicability to the property type being valued and the quality of information available. The reliability of each approach is dependent upon the availability and comparability of the market data uncovered as well as the motivation and thinking of purchasers in the market for a property such as the subject. Each approach is discussed below, and applicability to the subject property is briefly addressed in the following summary.

Land Value

Developing an opinion of land value is typically accomplished via the Sales Comparison Approach by analyzing recent sales transactions of sites of comparable zoning and utility adjusted for differences which exist between the comparables and the subject. Valuation is typically accomplished using a unit of comparison such as price per square foot of land or potential building area or acre. Adjustments are applied to the unit of comparison from an analysis of comparable sales, and the adjusted unit of comparison is then used to derive a value for the subject site.

Cost Approach

The Cost Approach is based upon the proposition that an informed purchaser would pay no more for the subject than the cost to produce a substitute property with equivalent utility. This approach is particularly applicable when the property being appraised involves relatively new improvements which represent the highest and best use of the land; or when relatively unique or specialized improvements are located on the site, for which there exist few improved sales or leases of comparable properties.

In the Cost Approach, the appraiser forms an opinion of the cost of all improvements, depreciating them to reflect any value loss from physical, functional and external causes. Land value, entrepreneurial profit and depreciated improvement costs are then added resulting in a value estimate for the subject property.

Sales Comparison Approach

The Sales Comparison Approach utilizes sales of comparable properties, adjusted for differences, to indicate a value for the subject property. Valuation is typically accomplished using a unit of comparison such as price per square foot of building area, effective gross income multiplier or net income multiplier. Adjustments are applied to the unit of comparison from an analysis of comparable sales, and the adjusted unit of comparison is then used to derive a value for the subject property.

Income Capitalization Approach

This approach first determines the income-producing capacity of a property by utilizing contract rents on leases in place and by estimating market rent from rental activity at competing properties for the vacant space. Deductions then are made for vacancy and collection loss and operating expenses. The resulting net operating income is divided by an overall capitalization rate to derive an opinion of value for the subject property. The capitalization rate represents the relationship between net operating income and value. This method is referred to as Direct Capitalization.

Related to the Direct Capitalization Method is the Discounted Cash Flow Method. In this method, periodic cash flows (which consist of net operating income less capital costs) and a reversionary value are developed and discounted to a present value using an internal rate of return that is determined by analyzing current investor yield requirements for similar investments.

Summary

This appraisal employs only the Sales Comparison Approach. Based on our analysis and knowledge of the subject property type and relevant investor profiles, it is our opinion that this approach would be considered necessary and applicable for market participants. The subject’s age makes it difficult to accurately form an opinion of depreciation and tends to make the Cost Approach unreliable. Furthermore, because the subject property is a specialized land use, it is not typically marketed, purchased or sold on the basis of anticipated lease-income. Therefore, we have not employed the Cost Approach or the Income Capitalization Approach to develop an opinion of market value.

The valuation process is concluded by analyzing each approach to value used in the appraisal. When more than one approach is used, each approach is judged based on its applicability, reliability, and the quantity and quality of its data. A final value opinion is chosen that either corresponds to one of the approaches to value, or is a correlation of all the approaches used in the appraisal.

LAND VALUATION

We used the Sales Comparison Approach to develop an opinion of land value. In this method, we analyzed prices buyers have recently paid for similar sites in the market, as well as examined current offerings. In making comparisons, we adjusted the sale prices for differences between this site and the comparable sites. If the comparable was superior to the subject, a downward adjustment was made to the comparable sale. If inferior, an upward adjustment was made. We present on the following pages a summary of pertinent details of sites recently sold that we compared to the subject site.

In the valuation of the subject site’s fee simple interest, the Sales Comparison Approach has been used to establish prices being paid for comparably zoned land. The most widely used and market oriented unit of comparison for properties with characteristics similar to those of the subject is the sale price per square foot of land area. All transactions utilized in this analysis are analyzed on this basis.

The major elements of comparison utilized to value the subject site include the property rights conveyed, the financial terms incorporated into the transaction, the conditions or motivations surrounding the sale, changes in market conditions since the sale, the location of the real estate, its utility and the physical characteristics of the property.

Discussion of Adjustments

Property Rights Conveyed

All of the sales utilized in this analysis involved the transfer of the fee simple interest. In the case of the land we have estimated a fee simple value. Therefore, no adjustments were required.

Conditions of Sale

Adjustments for conditions of sale usually reflect the motivations of the buyer and the seller. In many situations the conditions of sale may significantly affect transaction prices. However, all sales used in this analysis are considered to be “arms-length” market transactions between both knowledgeable buyers and sellers on the open market. Therefore, no adjustments were required.

Financial Terms

To the best of our knowledge, all of the sales utilized in this analysis were accomplished with cash or market-oriented financing. Therefore, no adjustments were required.

Market Conditions

The sales that are included in this analysis date between May 2004 and November 2005. As the market has changed over this time period, we have applied an annual adjustment of 3.00 percent.

Location

An adjustment for location is required when the locational characteristics of a comparable property are different from those of the subject property. The subject property is considered to have a good location. We have made a downward adjustment to those comparables considered superior in location versus the subject. Conversely, an upward adjustment was made to those comparables considered inferior.

Size

The size adjustment generally reflects the inverse relationship between unit price and lot size. Smaller lots tend to sell for higher unit prices than larger lots, and vice versa. Hence, upward adjustments were made to larger land parcels, and downward adjustments were made to smaller land parcels.

Public Utilities

All of the sales, like the subject, had full access to public utilities at the time of sale; therefore, no adjustments were required.

Utility

The subject parcel is adequately shaped to accommodate a typical building, and it has good access, frontage and visibility. When a comparable was considered to have superior or inferior utility, the appropriate adjustment was made.

Other

In some cases, other variables will impact the price of a transaction. Some examples would include soil or slope conditions, restrictive zoning, easements, wetlands or external influences. In our analysis of the comparables we found that no unusual conditions existed at the time of sale. As a result, no adjustments were required.

Discussion of Comparable Sales

There is very little commercial or industrial land sales activity in the local market. As such, there is very little industrial land activity in the local market. We have analyzed the most comparable sales in the region as well as the local market.

Comparable Sale No. 1

This is the sale of a 65,000 square foot parcel located on Part of the Phelps Dodge Site in Maspeth, Queens, NY. This property is in the M3-1, Manufacturing zoning district. Sagres Partners LLC sold the property to Montebello Italian Food Company in October 2005 for a price of $5,460,000 or $42.00 per square foot of developable land area (FAR). The zoning allows for 130,000 square feet of development. Public utilities are all available. This site has significant tax incentives for development which tends to inflate the value of the land. After all adjustments, this sale indicated an adjusted unit value of $31.82 per developable square foot (FAR).

Comparable Sale No. 2

This is the sale of a 120,000 square foot parcel located on the Part of the Phelps Dodge Site in Maspeth, Queens, NY. This property is in the M3-1, Manufacturing zoning district. Sagres Partners LLC sold the property to Thai Food Company in November 2005 for a price of $9,800,000 or $40.83 per square foot of developable land area (FAR). The zoning allows for 240,000 square feet of development. Public utilities are all available. This site has significant tax incentives for development which tends to inflate the value of the land. After all adjustments, this sale indicated an adjusted unit value of $30.84 per developable square foot (FAR).

Comparable Sale No. 3

This is the sale of a 108,900 square foot parcel located on the Part of the Phelps Dodge Site in Maspeth, Queens, NY. This property is in the M3-1, Manufacturing zoning district. Sagres Partners LLC sold the property to Radhaswamy, Inc in August 2005 for a price of $8,000,000 or $36.73 per square foot of developable land area (FAR). The zoning allows for 217,800 square feet of development. Public utilities are all available. This site has significant tax incentives for development which tends to inflate the value of the land. After all adjustments, this sale indicated an adjusted unit value of $27.96 per developable square foot (FAR).

Comparable Sale No. 4

This is the sale of a 23,783 square foot parcel located on the Norton Drive in Far Rockaway, NY. This property is in the C3 zoning district. Jamaica Yacht Club Inc. sold the property to 76 North Realty Co., LLC in January 2005 for a price of $430,000 or $36.16 per square foot of developable land area (FAR). The zoning allows for 11,892 square feet of development. Public utilities are all available. The property is being held for future development. After all adjustments, this sale indicated an adjusted unit value of $31.69 per developable square foot (FAR).

Comparable Sale No. 5

This is the sale of a 19,440 square foot parcel located on the 143-02 / 16 Rockaway Blvd. in Jamaica, NY. This property is in the R3-2 zoning district. Block Three sold the property to Wilter Alarcon in May 2004 for a price of $500,000 or $25.72 per square foot of developable land area (FAR). The site has 19,440 of developable land area (FAR). All public utilities are all available. The purchaser is holding the site for development of a small residential building. After all adjustments, this sale indicated an adjusted unit value of $25.72 per developable square foot (FAR).

Conclusion of Site Value

After adjustments, the comparable land sales reflect unit prices ranging from $27.08 to $31.82 per square foot of FAR with an average of $29.88 per square foot of developable land (FAR) or ($1,179,749 to $1,385,861 per acre), with an average of ($1,301,470 per acre).

Each of the sales has been considered in our analysis. Therefore, we conclude that the indicated value by the Sales Comparison Approach is:

AS IS VALUE CONCLUSION	$/FAR		$/Acre
Indicated Value	$	30.00	$	1,306,800
Site Area	x 3,145		x 0.0722
Indicated Value	$	94,350	$	94,350
Rounded to nearest $2,500	$	95,000	$	95,000
$/unit basis	$	30.21	$	1,315,803

LAND SALE LOCATION MAP

[OMITTED]

SUMMARY OF LAND SALES

No.

Location

Grantor
Grantee

Price
Date

Site SqFt
Site Acres

Zoning
Potential FAR

Public
Utilities

Price/SF
Price/FAR

COMMENTS

Part of the Phelps Dodge Site

Sagres Partners LLC

$5,460,000

65,000

M3-1, Manufacturing

All Available

$84.00

This site has significant tax incentives for

Maspeth, Queens, NY

Montebello Italian Food Company

10/05

1.4922 Ac

130,000

$42.00

development which tends to inflate the value of the land.

Part of the Phelps Dodge Site

Sagres Partners LLC

$9,800,000

120,000 SF

M3-1, Manufacturing

All Available

$81.67

This site has significant tax incentives for

Maspeth, Queens, NY

Thai Food Company

11/05

2.7548 Ac

240,000

$40.83

development which tends to inflate the value of the land.

Part of the Phelps Dodge Site

Sagres Partners LLC

$8,000,000

108,900 SF

M3-1, Manufacturing

All Available

$73.46

This site has significant tax incentives for

Maspeth, Queens, NY

Radhaswamy, Inc

8/05

2.5000 Ac

217,800

$36.73

development which tends to inflate the value of the land.

Norton Drive

Jamaica Yacht Club Inc.

$430,000

23,783 SF

All Available

$18.08

The property is being held for future development.

Far Rockaway, NY

76 North Realty Co., LLC

1/05

0.5460 Ac

11,892

$36.16

143-02 / 16 Rockaway Blvd.

Block Three

$500,000

19,440 SF

R3-2

All Available

$25.72

The purchaser is holding the site for development

Jamaica, NY

Wilter Alarcon

5/04

0.4463 Ac

19,440

$25.72

of a small residential building.

Price

Site SF

Zoning

Public

Price/SF

Date

Site Acres

Utility*

Utilities

Price/Acre

Survey Low

$430,000

19,440 SF

Industrial

all available

18.08

Survey High

$9,800,000

120,000 SF

PDP

all available

84.00

Average

$4,838,000

67,425 SF

Industrial

all available

56.59

Survey Low

5/04

0.4463 Ac

Average

25.72

Survey High

11/05

20.0000 Ac

Average

42.00

Average

4/05

4.6232 Ac

Average

36.29

Subject Property

3,053

Industrial

all available

0.0701

average

LAND SALE ADJUSTMENT GRID

Price

Economic Adjustments (Cumulative)

Property Characteristic Adjustments (Additive)

Per FAR

Property

Adj.

Rights

Conditions

Market*

Public

Price

No.

Date

Conveyed

of Sale

Financing

Conditions

Subtotal

Location

Size

Utilities

Utility**

Other

PSF/FAR

Overall

$42.00

Fee Simple/Mkt.

Arms-Length

None

Inferior

$42.42

Superior

Larger

Similar

Superior

$31.82

Superior

10/05

0.0%

1.0%

-15.0%

5.0%

0.0%

-15.0%

-25.0%

$40.83

Fee Simple/Mkt.

Arms-Length

None

Inferior

$41.12

Superior

Larger

Similar

Superior

$30.84

Superior

11/05

0.0%

0.7%

-15.0%

5.0%

0.0%

-15.0%

-25.0%

$36.73

Fee Simple/Mkt.

Arms-Length

None

Inferior

$37.28

Superior

Larger

Similar

Superior

$27.96

Superior

8/05

0.0%

1.5%

-15.0%

5.0%

0.0%

-15.0%

-25.0%

$36.16

Fee Simple/Mkt.

Arms-Length

None

Inferior

$37.28

Superior

Similar

$31.69

Superior

1/05

0.0%

3.1%

-15.0%

0.0%

-15.0%

$25.72

Fee Simple/Mkt.

Arms-Length

None

Inferior

$27.08

Similar

$27.08

Similar

5/04

0.0%

5.3%

0.0%

SALES SUMMARY

Price Range	Unadj. $/SF		$/Acre		Adj. $/SF		$/Acre
Low	$	25.72	$	1,120,370	$	27.08	$	1,179,749
High	$	42.00	$	1,829,520	$	31.82	$	1,385,861
Average	$	38.93	$	1,695,840	$	29.88	$	1,301,470

AS IS VALUE CONCLUSION	$/FAR		$/Acre
Indicated Value	$	30.00	$	1,306,800
Site Area	x 3,145		x 0.0722
Indicated Value	$	94,350	$	94,350
Rounded to nearest $2,500	$	95,000	$	95,000
$/unit basis	$	30.21	$	1,315,803

*Market Conditions Adjustment

Compound annual change in market conditions:	3.00	%
Date of Value (for adjustment calculations):	2/2/06

**Utility includes shape, zoning, access, frontage and visibility.

RECONCILIATION AND FINAL VALUE OPINION

Valuation Methodology Review and Reconciliation

The approaches indicated the following:

RECONCILIATION	As Is Value
Date of Value	February 2, 2006		PSF/FAR
Cost Approach	N/A		N/A

Sales Comparison Approach
Percentage Adjustment Method	$	95,000	$	30.21
Conclusion	$	95,000	$	30.21

Income Capitalization Approach	N/A		N/A

Final Value Conclusion	$	95,000	$	30.21

The subject is not currently subject to a lease. Therefore, we have given most weight to the Sales Comparison Approach because this mirrors the methodology used by purchasers of this property type. We have placed very little weight on the Sales Comparison Approach in this analysis.

Market Value As Is

Based on our Complete Appraisal as defined by the USPAP, we have developed an opinion that the Market Value of the Fee Simple estate of the referenced property, subject to the assumptions and limiting conditions, certifications, extraordinary and hypothetical conditions, if any, and definitions, “As Is” on February 2, 2006 is:

NINETY-FIVE THOUSAND DOLLARS

$95,000

ASSUMPTIONS AND LIMITING CONDITIONS

“Report” means the appraisal or consulting report and conclusions stated therein, to which these Assumptions and Limiting Conditions are annexed.

“Property” means the subject of the Report.

“C&W” means Cushman & Wakefield, Inc. or its subsidiary that issued the Report.

“Appraiser(s)” means the employee(s) of C&W who prepared and signed the Report.

The Report has been made subject to the following assumptions and limiting conditions:

1. No opinion is intended to be expressed and no responsibility is assumed for the legal description or for any matters that are legal in nature or require legal expertise or specialized knowledge beyond that of a real estate appraiser. Title to the Property is assumed to be good and marketable and the Property is assumed to be free and clear of all liens unless otherwise stated. No survey of the Property was undertaken.

2. The information contained in the Report or upon which the Report is based has been gathered from sources the Appraiser assumes to be reliable and accurate. The owner of the Property may have provided some of such information. Neither the Appraiser nor C&W shall be responsible for the accuracy or completeness of such information, including the correctness of estimates, opinions, dimensions, sketches, exhibits and factual matters. Any authorized user of the Report is obligated to bring to the attention of C&W any inaccuracies or errors that it believes are contained in the Report.

3. The opinions are only as of the date stated in the Report. Changes since that date in external and market factors or in the Property itself can significantly affect the conclusions.

4. The Report is to be used in whole and not in part. No part of the Report shall be used in conjunction with any other analyses. Publication of the Report or any portion thereof without the prior written consent of C&W is prohibited. Reference to the Appraisal Institute or to the MAI designation is prohibited. Except as may be otherwise stated in the letter of engagement, the Report may not be used by any person(s) other than the party(ies) to whom it is addressed or for purposes other than that for which it was prepared. No part of the Report shall be conveyed to the public through advertising, or used in any sales, promotion, offering or SEC material without C&W’s prior written consent.

Any authorized user(s) of this Report who provides a copy to, or permits reliance thereon by, any person or entity not authorized by C&W in writing to use or rely thereon, hereby agrees to indemnify and hold C&W, its affiliates and their respective shareholders, directors, officers and employees, harmless from and against all damages, expenses, claims and costs, including attorneys’ fees, incurred in investigating and defending any claim arising from or in any way connected to the use of, or reliance upon, the Report by any such unauthorized person(s) or entity(ies).

5. Except as may be otherwise stated in the letter of engagement, the Appraiser shall not be required to give testimony in any court or administrative proceeding relating to the Property or the Appraisal.

6. The Report assumes (a) responsible ownership and competent management of the Property; (b) there are no hidden or unapparent conditions of the Property, subsoil or structures that render the Property more or less valuable (no responsibility is assumed

for such conditions or for arranging for engineering studies that may be required to discover them); (c) full compliance with all applicable federal, state and local zoning and environmental regulations and laws, unless noncompliance is stated, defined and considered in the Report; and (d) all required licenses, certificates of occupancy and other governmental consents have been or can be obtained and renewed for any use on which the value opinion contained in the Report is based.

7. The physical condition of the improvements considered by the Report is based on visual inspection by the Appraiser or other person identified in the Report. C&W assumes no responsibility for the soundness of structural members or for the condition of mechanical equipment, plumbing or electrical components.

8. The forecasted potential gross income referred to in the Report may be based on lease summaries provided by the owner or third parties. The Report assumes no responsibility for the authenticity or completeness of lease information provided by others. C&W recommends that legal advice be obtained regarding the interpretation of lease provisions and the contractual rights of parties.

9. The forecasts of income and expenses are not predictions of the future. Rather, they are the Appraiser’s best opinions of current market thinking on future income and expenses. The Appraiser and C&W make no warranty or representation that these forecasts will materialize. The real estate market is constantly fluctuating and changing. It is not the Appraiser’s task to predict or in any way warrant the conditions of a future real estate market; the Appraiser can only reflect what the investment community, as of the date of the Report, envisages for the future in terms of rental rates, expenses, and supply and demand.

10. Unless otherwise stated in the Report, the existence of potentially hazardous or toxic materials that may have been used in the construction or maintenance of the improvements or may be located at or about the Property was not considered in arriving at the opinion of value. These materials (such as formaldehyde foam insulation, asbestos insulation and other potentially hazardous materials) may adversely affect the value of the Property. The Appraisers are not qualified to detect such substances. C&W recommends that an environmental expert be employed to determine the impact of these matters on the opinion of value.

11. Unless otherwise stated in the Report, compliance with the requirements of the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 (ADA) has not been considered in arriving at the opinion of value. Failure to comply with the requirements of the ADA may adversely affect the value of the Property. C&W recommends that an expert in this field be employed.

12. If the Report is submitted to a lender or investor with the prior approval of C&W, such party should consider this Report as only one factor together with its independent investment considerations and underwriting criteria, in its overall investment decision. Such lender or investor is specifically cautioned to understand all Extraordinary Assumptions and Hypothetical Conditions and the Assumptions and Limiting Conditions incorporated in this Report.

13. In the event of a claim against C&W or its affiliates or their respective officers or employees or the Appraisers in connection with or in any way relating to this Report or

this engagement, the maximum damages recoverable shall be the amount of the monies actually collected by C&W or its affiliates for this Report and under no circumstances shall any claim for consequential damages be made.

14. If the Report is referred to or included in any offering material or prospectus, the Report shall be deemed referred to or included for informational purposes only and C&W, its employees and the Appraiser have no liability to such recipients. C&W disclaims any and all liability to any party other than the party that retained C&W to prepare the Report.

15. At the Client’s request, we have provided an insurable value estimate. The estimate is based on figures derived from a national cost estimating service and is developed consistent with industry practices. However, actual local and regional construction costs may vary significantly from our estimate and individual insurance policies and underwriters have varied specifications, exclusions, and non-insurable items. As such, we strongly recommend that the Client obtain estimates from professionals experienced in establishing insurance coverage for replacing any structure. This analysis should not be relied upon to determine insurance coverage. Furthermore, we make no warranties regarding the accuracy of this estimate.

16. By use of this Report each party that uses this Report agrees to be bound by all of the Assumptions and Limiting Conditions, Hypothetical Conditions and Extraordinary Assumptions stated herein.

Extraordinary Assumptions

An extraordinary assumption is defined by the USPAP (2004 Edition, The Appraisal Foundation, page 3) as “an assumption, directly related to a specific assignment, which, if found to be false, could alter the appraiser’s opinions or conclusions. Extraordinary assumptions presume as fact otherwise uncertain information about physical, legal or economic characteristics of the subject property; or about conditions external to the property, such as market conditions or trends; or about the integrity of data used in an analysis.”

This appraisal employs no extraordinary assumptions.

Hypothetical Conditions

A hypothetical condition is defined by the USPAP (2004 Edition, The Appraisal Foundation, page 3) as “that which is contrary to what exists but is supposed for the purpose of analysis. Hypothetical conditions assume conditions contrary to known facts about physical, legal, or economic characteristics of the subject property; or about conditions external to the property, such as market conditions or trends; or about the integrity of data used in an analysis.”

This appraisal employs no hypothetical conditions.

CERTIFICATION OF APPRAISAL

We certify that, to the best of our knowledge and belief:

1. The statements of fact contained in this report are true and correct.

2. The reported analyses, opinions, and conclusions are limited only by the reported assumptions and limiting conditions, and are our personal, impartial, and unbiased professional analyses, opinions, and conclusions.

3. We have no present or prospective interest in the property that is the subject of this report, and no personal interest with respect to the parties involved.

4. We have no bias with respect to the property that is the subject of this report or to the parties involved with this assignment.

5. Our engagement in this assignment was not contingent upon developing or reporting predetermined results.

6. Our compensation for completing this assignment is not contingent upon the development or reporting of a predetermined value or direction in value that favors the cause of the client, the amount of the value opinion, the attainment of a stipulated result, or the occurrence of a subsequent event directly related to the intended use of this appraisal.

7. The reported analyses, opinions, and conclusions were developed, and this report has been prepared, in conformity with the requirements of the Code of Professional Ethics & Standards of Professional Practice of the Appraisal Institute, which include the Uniform Standards of Professional Appraisal Practice.

8. Philip P. Cadorette, MAI made a personal inspection of the property that is the subject of this report.

9. No one else provided significant real property appraisal assistance to the persons signing this report.

10. The use of this report is subject to the requirements of the Appraisal Institute relating to review by its duly authorized representatives.

11. As of the date of this report, Philip P. Cadorette, MAI has completed the continuing education program of the Appraisal Institute.

/s Philip P. Cadorette

Philip P. Cadorette, MAI
Director
New York Certified General Appraiser
License No. 46000003076
phil_cadorette@cushwake.com
212-841-7604 Office Direct
212-841-7849 Fax

ADDENDA

Addenda Contents

ADDENDUM A: Qualifications of the Appraisers



	Cushman & Wakefield, Inc.
	51 West 52nd Street, 9th Floor
	New York, NY 10019-6178
	212-841-7604 Tel
	212-841-7849 fax
	phil_cadorette@cushwake.com

Re:	Complete Appraisal of Real Property
	In a Self-Contained Report

	Vacant Land
	N/W/C of Rockaway Beach Blvd. & Beach 49th Street
	Arverne, Queens County, NY 11208

	C&W File ID: 06-12002-9224

Common Property Name:	Vacant Land

Location:	N/W/C of Rockaway Beach Blvd. & Beach 49th Street Arverne, Queens County, NY 11208 The subject is located along the N/E/C of Rockaway Beach Boulevard and Beach 49th Street.

Property Description:	The property is a small vacant site containing 0.072-acre parcel of land.

Assessor’s Parcel Number:	Block: 15841, Lots: 3

Interest Appraised:	Fee Simple Estate

Date of Value:	February 2, 2006

Date of Inspection:	February 2, 2006

Ownership:	GTJ Co., Inc.

Occupancy:	The subject property is a small vacant site.

Current Property Taxes

Total Assessment:	$11,430

2005/2006 Property Taxes:	$1,292

Highest and Best Use

If Vacant:	A commercial or industrial building developed to the highest density possible for a specific user

As Improved:	N/A

Site & Improvements

Zoning:	C8-1

Land Area:	0.07 acres 3,145 square feet

VALUE INDICATORS	Market Value As Is
Land Value
Indicated Value:	$	95,000
Per Square Foot / FAR:	$	30.21
Per Acre:	$	1,315,803

Sales Comparison Approach:
Indicated Value:	$	95,000
Per Square Foot (NRA):	$	30.21

Income Capitalization Approach	N/A

Final Value Conclusion
Concluded Value:	$	95,000
Per Square Foot (NRA):	$	30.21

Exposure Time:	9 Months
Marketing Time:	9 Months

INTRODUCTION	1

REGIONAL MAP	6

NEW YORK CITY REGIONAL ANALYSIS	7

LOCAL AREA MAP	13

LOCAL AREA ANALYSIS	14

SITE DESCRIPTION	16

REAL PROPERTY TAXES AND ASSESSMENTS	20

ZONING	21

HIGHEST AND BEST USE	23

VALUATION PROCESS	24

LAND VALUATION	26

RECONCILIATION AND FINAL VALUE OPINION	32

ASSUMPTIONS AND LIMITING CONDITIONS	34

CERTIFICATION OF APPRAISAL	37

ADDENDA	38

Extraordinary Assumptions:	This appraisal employs no extraordinary assumptions.

Hypothetical Conditions:	This appraisal employs no hypothetical conditions.

/s/ *Philip P. Cadorette*

Philip P. Cadorette, MAI
Director
New York Certified General Appraiser
License No. 46000003076
phil_cadorette@cushwake.com
212-841-7604 Office Direct
212-841-7849 Fax

Current Ownership:	GTJ Co., Inc.

Sale History:	To the best of our knowledge, the property has not transferred within the past three years.

Current Disposition:	To the best of our knowledge the subject is not in contract nor being marketed for sale. Our appraisal is being completed for internal decision making which may lead to a sale.

Real Estate Appraisal Principles	Single Family Residences
Basic Valuations	Case Studies in Real Estate Valuation
Capitalization Theory & Techniques, A & B	The Complete Appraisal Review
Valuation Analysis and Report Writing	Standards of Professional Practice, A & B

This ‘S-11/A’ Filing	Date	Other Filings

Filed as of:	10/19/06	None on these Dates
Filed on:	10/18/06
	2/25/06
	2/2/06
	5/18/92
	1/26/92
		List all Filings

GTJ REIT, Inc. – ‘S-11/A’ on 10/18/06 – EX-99.2

On: Wednesday, 10/18/06, at 6:27pm ET · As of: 10/19/06 · Accession #: 1104659-6-67307 · File #: 333-136110

Pre-Effective Amendment to Registration Statement for Securities of a Real Estate Company — Form S-11Filing Table of Contents

EX-99.2 — Miscellaneous Exhibit

This exhibit is an HTML Document rendered as filed. [ Alternative Formats ]

INTRODUCTION

Identification of Property

Property Ownership and Recent History

Intended Use and Users of the Appraisal

Dates of Inspection and Valuation

Property Rights Appraised

Scope of the Appraisal

Definitions of Value, Interest Appraised and Other Terms

Market Value

Fee Simple Estate

Leased Fee Interest

Leasehold Interest

Market Rent

Cash Equivalence

Value As Is

Prospective Value Opinion

Prospective Value Upon Reaching Stabilized Occupancy

Exposure Time and Marketing Time

Exposure Time

Marketing Time

Legal Description

REGIONAL MAP

NEW YORK CITY REGIONAL ANALYSIS

Regional Area Overview

Market Outlook

Market Definition

Current Trends

Economics

Demographics

Regional Summary / Market Competitiveness

LOCAL AREA MAP

LOCAL AREA ANALYSIS

General Information

SITE DESCRIPTION

Americans With Disabilities Act

Hazardous Substances

REAL PROPERTY TAXES AND ASSESSMENTS

Current Property Taxes

Current Property Taxes

ZONING

HIGHEST AND BEST USE

Definition Of Highest And Best Use

Highest And Best Use Criteria

Legally Permissible

Physically Possible

Financial Feasibility and Maximal Productivity

Highest and Best Use of Site As Though Vacant

VALUATION PROCESS

Methodology

Land Value

Cost Approach

Sales Comparison Approach

Income Capitalization Approach

Summary

LAND VALUATION

Discussion of Adjustments

Property Rights Conveyed

Conditions of Sale

Financial Terms

Market Conditions

Location

Size

Public Utilities

Utility

Other

Discussion of Comparable Sales

Comparable Sale No. 1

Comparable Sale No. 2

Comparable Sale No. 3

Comparable Sale No. 4

Comparable Sale No. 5

Conclusion of Site Value

RECONCILIATION AND FINAL VALUE OPINION

Valuation Methodology Review and Reconciliation

ASSUMPTIONS AND LIMITING CONDITIONS

Pre-Effective Amendment to Registration Statement for Securities of a Real Estate Company — Form S-11
Filing Table of Contents