Matter, Parkway Plaza
Asr. of Canandaigua

Not overruled or negatively treated on appealinfoCoverage
Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Fourth DepartmentFeb 16, 2000
269 A.D.2d 811 (N.Y. App. Div. 2000)
269 A.D.2d 811703 N.Y.S.2d 790

Cases citing this case

How cited

  • Russo v. Russo

    …of Hous. Community Renewal, 269 A.D.2d 443; Matter of Parkway Plaza v. Assessor of City of Canandaigua, 269…

  • Matter of Jankolovits v. Tax Comm. of N.Y

    …Contrary to the Supreme Court's conclusion, the applications signed by Empire's principal, Claire Gangi, did…

lock 3 Citing caseskeyboard_arrow_right

February 16, 2000

Appeal from Order of Supreme Court, Ontario County, Harvey, J. — RPTL.


Order unanimously affirmed without costs.


Petitioner commenced this proceeding pursuant to article 7 of the Real Property Tax Law to obtain judicial review of its assessment for the 1996/1997 tax year. Petitioner appeals from an order granting the motion of the Assessor of the City of Canandaigua (respondent) to dismiss the petition on the ground that petitioner had willfully failed to comply with a reasonable request of the Board of Assessment Review for further information in support of petitioner's tax grievance, thereby forfeiting petitioner's right to judicial review ( see, RPTL 525 [a]).

Supreme Court properly exercised its discretion in excusing respondent's failure to submit the order within 60 days after the signing and filing of the decision directing that the order be submitted ( see, 22 NYCRR 202.48). The court properly found that good cause exists for signing the order despite respondent's delay in submitting it ( see, Abby Varieties v. Colonial Vil. at Heathcote, 252 A.D.2d 473; Lawton v. Lawton, 239 A.D.2d 866; Cohen v. Kessler, 236 A.D.2d 356). We note that there are "compelling" policies that favor excusing the late settlement of the order in this case ( Oliva v. Lucero, 212 A.D.2d 407), including those against nullifying the court's determination of the merits of the case, burdening the court with the trial of a demonstrably meritless action, undermining the proper "repose" of a court proceeding, or otherwise wasting judicial resources ( Meany v. Supermarkets Gen. Corp., 239 A.D.2d 393, 394; see, Dime Sav. Bank of N. Y. v. Anzel, 232 A.D.2d 446, 446-447; Crawford v. Simmons, 226 A.D.2d 667; Matter of Smith Barney Harris Upham Co. v. Kasachkoff, 217 A.D.2d 443; Matter of Smith v. City of New York, 213 A.D.2d 309, 310).

The court properly dismissed the proceeding for petitioner's willful failure to provide relevant information requested by the Board of Assessment Review ( see, RPTL 525 [a]; Matter of Sarsfield v. Board of Assessors, 240 A.D.2d 506, appeal dismissed 90 N.Y.2d 1007; Matter of Chester Mall Partners v. Village of Chester, 239 A.D.2d 414, 414-415; Matter of Lynch v. Board of Assessors, 227 A.D.2d 486; Matter of Doubleday Co. v. Board of Assessors, 202 A.D.2d 424, 424-425, lv dismissed 83 N.Y.2d 906). Contrary to petitioner's argument, "[i]t is for the [Board of Assessment Review], not the taxpayer, to determine what information is material to the proceeding" ( Matter of Grossman v. Board of Trustees, 44 A.D.2d 259, 263).