From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Coliseum Hotel Associates v. Uniondale Union Free School District No. 2

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Aug 21, 1989
153 A.D.2d 654 (N.Y. App. Div. 1989)

Opinion

August 21, 1989

Appeal from the Supreme Court, Nassau County (McGinity, J.).


Ordered that the order and judgment is modified, on the law, by (1) deleting so much of the ninth decretal paragraph thereof as declared that "protest of [tax payments] must have been exclusively evidenced by the commencement of proceedings pursuant to Article 7 of the Real Property Tax Law", (2) deleting the tenth decretal paragraph thereof which dismissed "the demand for the relief of plaintiff's [amended] complaint that seeks refund of taxes overpaid for the years in which the exemption afforded by Section 485-b Real Prop. Tax of the Real Property Tax Law was not extended" and reinstating that portion of the amended complaint insofar as it is asserted against the county defendants, and (3) adding a provision thereto declaring that the Uniondale Union Free School District No. 2 is not liable for tax refunds; as so modified, the order and judgment is affirmed insofar as appealed from, without costs or disbursements; and it is further,

Ordered that the action against the defendants Board of Assessors of the County of Nassau and County of Nassau is severed and their time to serve an answer to the amended complaint is extended until 30 days after service upon them of a copy of this decision and order, with notice of entry.

The factual and procedural history of this case is described in this court's decision in Corporate Prop. Investors v. Board of Assessors ( 153 A.D.2d 656 [decided herewith]).

In view of the fact that the plaintiff herein commenced a declaratory judgment action challenging the assessments in question in June 1984, it sufficiently protested tax payments made subsequent thereto and while the action was still pending (see, Corporate Prop. Investors v. Board of Assessors, supra). However, we cannot decide that branch of the plaintiff's motion which was for summary judgment on the issue of refund liability as against the county defendants since there has not been joinder of issue with respect to these defendants (see, Corporate Prop. Investors v. Board of Assessors, supra). In light of this determination, we do not consider the effect of Laws of 1989 (ch 702) on the county defendants' liability, if any.

We have examined the parties' remaining contentions and find that they are either without merit or need not be addressed in light of our determination. Lawrence, J.P., Rubin, Sullivan and Balletta, JJ., concur.


Summaries of

Coliseum Hotel Associates v. Uniondale Union Free School District No. 2

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Aug 21, 1989
153 A.D.2d 654 (N.Y. App. Div. 1989)
Case details for

Coliseum Hotel Associates v. Uniondale Union Free School District No. 2

Case Details

Full title:COLISEUM HOTEL ASSOCIATES, Appellant, v. UNIONDALE UNION FREE SCHOOL…

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

Date published: Aug 21, 1989

Citations

153 A.D.2d 654 (N.Y. App. Div. 1989)
545 N.Y.S.2d 177

Citing Cases

Verizon N.Y. Inc. v. Supervisor of Town of N. Hempstead

The County Code provides that refunds of this nature "shall be a county charge" (see Nassau County Code §…

Coliseum Hotel v. Uniondale Union Free School

Ordered that the appellants-respondents are awarded one bill of costs. We decline to consider the plaintiff's…