From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

78 South First Street Hous. Dev. Fund Corp. v. Crotty

Court of Appeals of the State of New York
May 3, 1990
75 N.Y.2d 982 (N.Y. 1990)

Summary

adopting reasoning of dissent

Summary of this case from Rudin v. Tax Commission of New York (In re Olympia & York Maiden Lane Co.)

Opinion

Argued March 27, 1990

Decided May 3, 1990

Appeal from the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court in the First Judicial Department, Francis Pecora, J.

Victor A. Kovner, Corporation Counsel (Judith R. Greenwald, Edith I. Spivak and Joseph I. Lauer of counsel), for appellants.

Gerald A. Rosenberg, Janet Ellis Meiman and Kenneth C. Brown for respondents.


Order reversed, with costs, defendants' motion to dismiss the complaint granted and certified question answered in the negative for reasons stated in the dissenting memorandum by Justice E. Leo Milonas at the Appellate Division ( 150 A.D.2d 218, 220-222).

Concur: Chief Judge WACHTLER and Judges SIMONS, KAYE, ALEXANDER, TITONE, HANCOCK, JR., and BELLACOSA.


Summaries of

78 South First Street Hous. Dev. Fund Corp. v. Crotty

Court of Appeals of the State of New York
May 3, 1990
75 N.Y.2d 982 (N.Y. 1990)

adopting reasoning of dissent

Summary of this case from Rudin v. Tax Commission of New York (In re Olympia & York Maiden Lane Co.)
Case details for

78 South First Street Hous. Dev. Fund Corp. v. Crotty

Case Details

Full title:78 SOUTH FIRST STREET HOUSING DEVELOPMENT FUND CORPORATION et al., on…

Court:Court of Appeals of the State of New York

Date published: May 3, 1990

Citations

75 N.Y.2d 982 (N.Y. 1990)
556 N.Y.S.2d 509
555 N.E.2d 906

Citing Cases

Matter of Sweig v. Finnerty

itioners' logic would control, each and every farm field would have to have its own tractors and equipment…

Matter of Kraebel v. N.Y. City Dept. of Fin

erly dismissed on the ground that petitioner's exclusive remedy for the reduced tax assessment she seeks is a…