In Matter of City of New York [Jomar Real Estate Corp.], 94 AD2d 724, 462 N.Y.S.2d 260, claimant and defendant each listed a different highest and best use for the subject property. Defendant contended the property's highest and best use was for industrial purposes. Claimant contended the highest and best use was a commercial use (i.e. a neighborhood shopping center). Several years prior to the vesting date, claimant began to clear the land and improve it. Claimant leveled the property, cleared debris and had sewers installed. Claimant's expert testified he was familiar with the area and based upon his experience, the neighborhood could support a local shopping center. Defendant's expert conceded the land was more valuable with a commercial use as opposed to an industrial use. However, defendant's expert believed a commercial enterprise would not do well in this area. The appellate division found the defense expert's "belief" was insufficient to rebut claimant's proof as to the highest and best use. Claimant had proven the likelihood of the highest and best use which would have occurred if condemnation had not taken the subject property.