Laserfiche WebLink
examination, however, Mr. Checca revealed his mistaken belief that the submerged land that is <br /> the subject of this lawsuit actually includes upland property. Trial T. 687. Specifically, he <br /> testified: <br /> Q. The upland development or the 20 slips that were permitted <br /> included some upland property that was on the site plan for the <br /> Class I permit submitted to DERM, was it not? <br /> A. All projects have to have an attachment to upland. <br /> Q. Have to have upland? <br /> A. They have to border on upland. <br /> Q. And your assumption is this submerged land that is the <br /> subject of this lawsuit has upland? <br /> A. That's correct. <br /> Trial T. 687 (emphasis added). Mr. Newstreet's conclusions were also based on that mistaken <br /> assumption. During his direct examination, Mr. Newstreet testified that he did not attempt to <br /> determine whether the property has uplands, and that he instead relied on Mr. Checca for that <br /> determination. Trial T. 721. During his cross-examination, Mr. Newstreet revealed his incorrect <br /> belief that the parent tract included upland property, and again admitted that his understanding of <br /> this issue was based solely on what he learned from Mr. Checca: <br /> Q. And based on what you know today . . . the property that is <br /> the subject of this lawsuit is this submerged— this underwater land, <br /> right? <br /> A. Yes, sir. <br /> Q. You don't know if this property has any uplands, do you? <br /> A. I mean, as far as I know, it has sufficient uplands to receive <br /> permits. <br /> Q. As far as you know? <br /> 9 <br />