Lauer v. Bd. of Assessors
51 A.D.3d 926 (N.Y. App. Div. 2008) Cited 9 timesNo. 2007-06678. May 20, 2008. Proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78 to review a determination of a hearing officer dated March 14, 2006, which denied the petitioner's small claims assessment review application pursuant to Real Property Tax Law article 7 to reduce the tax assessment of his real property. Rosenfeld Maidenbaum, LLP, Cedarhurst, N.Y. (Mark H. Miller of counsel), for petitioner. Lorna B. Goodman, County Attorney, Mineola, N.Y. (Dennis J. Saffran of counsel), for respondents. Before:
Matter of Barbera v. Assessor of Pelham
278 A.D.2d 412 (N.Y. App. Div. 2000) Cited 14 timesArgued November 9, 2000. December 19, 2000. In a proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78 to review a determination of a Judicial Hearing Officer, dated February 12, 1999, which denied the petitioner's application pursuant to Real Property Tax Law article 7 to reduce the tax assessment of the petitioner's real property, the Assessor and the Board of Assessment Review of the Town of Pelham appeal from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Westchester County (Barone, J.), entered October 29, 1999, which granted
In re McNamara v. Board of Assessors
272 A.D.2d 617 (N.Y. App. Div. 2000) Cited 14 timesMay 30, 2000 In a proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78 to review five separate determinations of a Judicial Hearing Officer, all dated February 24, 1997, which denied applications pursuant to Real Property Tax Law article 7 to reduce tax assessments on two parcels of property, granted applications to reduce tax assessments on two other parcels of property only to a limited extent, and dismissed an application to reduce tax assessments on another parcel of property, respectively, the Board of Assessors
Town of New Castle v. Kaufmann
532 N.E.2d 1265 (N.Y. 1988) Cited 23 timesIn Matter of Town of New Castle v Kaufmann (72 NY2d 684, 686), the Court found that "[a] review of the history of RPTL 730 indicates that a narrow construction of the disputed language in this case would deny expedited and inexpensive review to homeowners and thus frustrate the statutory objectives."
In re Herbert Regenstreif
20 Misc. 3d 787 (N.Y. Sup. Ct. 2008)No. 1202-08/a. June 18, 2008. Herbert Regenstreif, Mineola, petitioner pro se, and for 358 Willis LLC, petitioner. Lorna B. Goodman, County Attorney, Mineola, for respondents. OPINION OF THE COURT WILLIAM R. LAMARCA, J. The decision and judgment of the court, dated May 27, 2008, is recalled for the purpose of clarifying the conclusion of same and the instant amended decision and judgment is substituted in its place, nunc pro tunc. Requested Relief In a CPLR article 78 proceeding, the petitioners
Novak & Co. v. Travelers Indemnity Co.
56 A.D.2d 418 (N.Y. App. Div. 1977) Cited 14 timesConsidering the viability of third-party beneficiary claims under surety bonds
Matter of Kline v. City of Rye
150 A.D.2d 576 (N.Y. App. Div. 1989) Cited 3 timesMay 15, 1989 Appeal from the Supreme Court, Westchester County (Cowhey, J.). Ordered that the order and judgment is affirmed, with costs to the respondent City of Rye. We agree with the Supreme Court that RPTL 730 (5) clearly and unequivocally prohibits the petitioner from seeking to join his two separately assessed lots in one petition for small claims assessment review. RPTL 730 (5) provides that "[n]o petition for small claims assessment review shall relate to more than one parcel of real property"
Matter of Pierse v. Zimmerman
255 App. Div. 708 (N.Y. App. Div. 1938) Cited 5 timesJuly 1, 1938. Appeal from Kings County. Present — Lazansky, P.J., Hagarty, Carswell, Johnston and Taylor, JJ. Order unanimously affirmed, with ten dollars costs and disbursements to respondents jointly. The uncontroverted evidence established that petitioner's store is on Broadway, Brooklyn, and that respondent's store is on Halsey street in a building a part of which, but not any part occupied by respondent's store, is on Broadway, within 1,500 feet of petitioner's store. The term "premises," as