Summary
allowing City of Kingston to redefine the plaintiff property owner as not qualifying for tax exemptions as a "redevelopment company"
Summary of this case from American Telephone & Telegraph Co v. New York City Department of Human ResourcesOpinion
Argued November 8, 1982
Decided December 2, 1982
Appeal from the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court in the Third Judicial Department, HAROLD J. HUGHES, J.
Paul L. Gruner and Brian L. Findholt for appellants.
Kristina A. Burns and Robert C. Weisenberger for respondent.
MEMORANDUM.
The order of the Appellate Division should be reversed, with costs, and judgment granted in defendants' favor declaring that the February, 1977 resolution passed by the City of Kingston limiting the tax levy on plaintiff's housing project is a nullity, and is not, and has never been, binding on defendants.
Municipal contracts which violate express statutory provisions are invalid ( Seif v City of Long Beach, 286 N.Y. 382; Kelly v Cohoes Housing Auth., 27 A.D.2d 463, affd 23 N.Y.2d 692; Albany Supply Equip. Co. v City of Cohoes, 25 A.D.2d 700, affd 18 N.Y.2d 968). Applying this principle, the city's 1977 resolution granting respondent a partial tax exemption was a nullity since it was not authorized under the express terms of section 125 (subd 1, par [a]) of the Private Housing Finance Law, which allows municipalities to contract for such exemptions only with "any redevelopment company"; concededly, respondent was not a "redevelopment company" at that time. Furthermore, because a governmental subdivision cannot be held answerable for the unauthorized acts of its agents ( Albany Supply Equip. Co. v City of Cohoes, supra; People v Baldwin, 197 App. Div. 285, 291, affd 233 N.Y. 672), we have frequently reiterated that estoppel is unavailable against a public agency (e.g., Public Improvements v Board of Educ., 56 N.Y.2d 850; Matter of Hamptons Hosp. Med. Center v Moore, 52 N.Y.2d 88).
Chief Judge COOKE and Judges JASEN, GABRIELLI, JONES, WACHTLER, FUCHSBERG and MEYER concur.
Order reversed, with costs, and judgment granted in favor of defendants in accordance with the memorandum herein.