From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Barclay Townhouse v. Town of Hempstead

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Dec 17, 2001
289 A.D.2d 351 (N.Y. App. Div. 2001)

Opinion

2000-09120

Argued November 15, 2001.

December 17, 2001.

In an action, inter alia, for a judgment declaring invalid the imposition of ad valorem taxes for garbage collection against the plaintiff's property, the defendants appeal from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Nassau County (Cozzens, J.), entered August 11, 2000, which, inter alia, upon the granting of the plaintiff's motion for summary judgment, in effect, declared invalid the imposition of ad valorem taxes for garbage collection against the plaintiff's property.

Santemma and Deutsch, LLP, Mineola, N.Y. (Andrew M. Mahony of counsel), for appellants.

Margolis Bergson, LLP, New York, N.Y. (Robert J. Bergson of counsel), for respondent.

Before: HOWARD MILLER, J.P., SANDRA L. TOWNES, STEPHEN G. CRANE, BARRY A. COZIER, JJ.


ORDERED that the judgment is affirmed, with costs.

The Town of Hempstead Board of Zoning Appeals adopted a resolution in 1986 which, among other things, prohibits the plaintiff from maintaining a common refuse or dumpster area on its premises (see, Town of Hempstead Board of Zoning Appeals Resolution No. 472-1986). The resolution mandates that each unit shall have individual, in-ground refuse containers, and that refuse removal shall be conducted by a private sanitation service (see, Town of Hempstead Board of Zoning Appeals Resolution No. 472-1986). Moreover, the Town Code of the Town of Hempstead prohibits the defendants from servicing in-ground refuse containers and only permits the collection of garbage from above-ground receptacles (see, Town of Hempstead Town Code § 128-7c). There is no dispute that the plaintiff complied with the resolution by hiring a private sanitation service to remove the refuse from each cooperative unit owner's in-ground container. Nevertheless, the plaintiff has been assessed ad valorem levies each year for sanitation services that the defendants do not provide.

Where property is excluded from garbage collection services, the imposition of a garbage collection tax is invalid (see, Applebaum v. Town of Oyster Bay, 81 N.Y.2d 733, 735; Landmark Colony at Oyster Bay Homeowners' Assn. v. Town of Oyster Bay, 145 A.D.2d 542, 544; Sperry Rand Corp. v. Town of Hempstead, 53 Misc.2d 970, affd 29 A.D.2d 968, affd 23 N.Y.2d 666). It is undisputed that neither the Town of Hempstead Board of Zoning Appeals' resolution prohibiting the plaintiff from maintaining a common dumpster area, nor the Town Code prohibiting the defendants from servicing the in-ground refuse containers, has been rescinded or modified. As a result, the plaintiff must hire a private carting service. There is no basis, therefore, for the defendants to impose a garbage collection tax on the plaintiff's property for a service it does not provide. The Supreme Court properly declared the tax invalid.

H. MILLER, J.P., TOWNES, CRANE and COZIER, JJ., concur.


Summaries of

Barclay Townhouse v. Town of Hempstead

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Dec 17, 2001
289 A.D.2d 351 (N.Y. App. Div. 2001)
Case details for

Barclay Townhouse v. Town of Hempstead

Case Details

Full title:BARCLAY TOWNHOUSE AT MERRICK II CORP., respondent, v. TOWN OF HEMPSTEAD…

Court:Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department

Date published: Dec 17, 2001

Citations

289 A.D.2d 351 (N.Y. App. Div. 2001)
734 N.Y.S.2d 870

Citing Cases

Landmark Colony at Oyster Bay Homeowners Ass'n, Inc. v. Town of Oyster Bay

The plaintiff argues that the Supreme Court properly determined that the SWDD tax is invalid because the 1980…

New York Tel. Co. V Supervisor of Town of Oyster Bay, 34

Thus, in Applebaum v. Town of Oyster Bay ( 81 NY2d 733), we considered the legality of Oyster Bay's imposing…