From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Matter of Trizec Western, Inc. v. City of New York

Court of Appeals of the State of New York
Nov 12, 1985
66 N.Y.2d 807 (N.Y. 1985)

Opinion

Argued October 8, 1985

Decided November 12, 1985

Appeal from the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court in the First Judicial Department, Alvin F. Klein, J.

Frederick A.O. Schwarz, Jr., Corporation Counsel (Regina Feder, Joseph I. Lauer and Gary Schuller of counsel), for appellants.

Michael S. Kelton for respondents.



MEMORANDUM.

The order of the Appellate Division should be reversed, with costs, and the petition dismissed. The certified question should be answered in the negative.

Petitioners' brief concedes that the dismissal of the third cause of action, from which they have not appealed, moots their first cause of action, and if we accept for purposes of argument their contention that the second and fourth causes of action are properly brought under CPLR article 78, rather than Real Property Tax Law article 7 (see, Hewlett Assoc. v City of New York, 57 N.Y.2d 356), those causes of action are nevertheless barred by limitations (CPLR 217).

Only when taxes have been collected without jurisdiction or in violation of constitutional authority may they be recovered by the taxpayer in a plenary action for money had and received (Niagara Mohawk Power Corp. v City School Dist., 59 N.Y.2d 262, 267). Here, however, "even if [petitioners] were granted the entire exemption for accessory use space that they seek [in the second and fourth causes of action], the property would still be subject to taxation by virtue of the 'mini-tax' provision of section 421-a" (Hewlett Assoc. v City of New York, supra, at pp 363-364). Because there was jurisdiction to tax, it was error to deem the fourth cause of action one for money had and received. Whether considered as an incidental claim for damages in an article 78 proceeding or as such a claim in a declaratory judgment action, the fourth cause of action was barred by the four-month limitation period applicable to article 78 proceedings (CPLR 217; Press v County of Monroe, 50 N.Y.2d 695; Solnick v Whalen, 49 N.Y.2d 224) as, of course, was also the second. The petition should, therefore, have been dismissed in its entirety.

Chief Judge WACHTLER and Judges JASEN, MEYER, KAYE, ALEXANDER and TITONE concur in memorandum; Judge SIMONS taking no part.

Order reversed, etc.


Summaries of

Matter of Trizec Western, Inc. v. City of New York

Court of Appeals of the State of New York
Nov 12, 1985
66 N.Y.2d 807 (N.Y. 1985)
Case details for

Matter of Trizec Western, Inc. v. City of New York

Case Details

Full title:In the Matter of TRIZEC WESTERN, INC., as Successor in Interest to BEERE…

Court:Court of Appeals of the State of New York

Date published: Nov 12, 1985

Citations

66 N.Y.2d 807 (N.Y. 1985)
498 N.Y.S.2d 348
489 N.E.2d 235

Citing Cases

645 First Ave. Manhattan Co.

The City argues that RPTL article 7 provides the exclusive remedy for all of petitioner's claims. An article…

People ex rel Brown v. Parole

However, appellate courts are empowered to convert a civil proceeding into one which is proper in form under…