From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Corporate Prop. Investors v. Bd. of Assessors

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Apr 11, 1994
203 A.D.2d 317 (N.Y. App. Div. 1994)

Opinion

April 11, 1994

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


Ordered that the appeal of the defendants Board of Assessors of the County of Nassau and the County of Nassau is dismissed as abandoned; and it is further,

Ordered that the order and judgment is affirmed; and it is further,

Ordered that the appellant-respondent is awarded one bill of costs.

The factual and procedural history of this case is described in this Court's decision and order in Corporate Prop. Investors v Board of Assessors ( 153 A.D.2d 656, affd on other grounds 80 N.Y.2d 961).

On the prior appeal, the plaintiffs, including Garden City Enterprises, argued that they had sufficiently protested the elimination of the RPTL 485-b tax exemption granted to them by moving to intervene in the case of Matter of Walker v Board of Assessors ( 118 Misc.2d 467, affd 103 A.D.2d 580, revd 66 N.Y.2d 702, supra), a proceeding to compel the Nassau County Board of Assessors to recognize the elimination of the RPTL 485-b tax exemption for school tax purposes. Thus, the plaintiffs argued that they would be entitled to a refund of any subsequent taxes paid as a result of the erroneous elimination of the RPTL 485-b tax exemption. We held that only the plaintiffs' commencement of a declaratory judgment action or other legal proceeding was a sufficient protest to place the county defendants on notice of the plaintiffs' tax refund claims. Also, we noted in our decision and order that we found the parties' remaining contentions to be without merit.

Our finding that the plaintiffs' motion to intervene in the Walker case was not a sufficient protest to entitle them to a refund of excess taxes paid as a result of the elimination of the RPTL 485-b tax exemption is the law of the case (see, Martin v City of Cohoes, 37 N.Y.2d 162; Carole A. v City of New York, 169 A.D.2d 800; Stokes v County of Suffolk, 63 A.D.2d 645). Moreover, we find no extraordinary circumstances in this case which would merit a departure from that doctrine (see, Foley v Roche, 86 A.D.2d 887). Bracken, J.P., Balletta, Pizzuto and Hart, JJ., concur.


Summaries of

Corporate Prop. Investors v. Bd. of Assessors

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Apr 11, 1994
203 A.D.2d 317 (N.Y. App. Div. 1994)
Case details for

Corporate Prop. Investors v. Bd. of Assessors

Case Details

Full title:CORPORATE PROPERTY INVESTORS et al., Plaintiffs, and GARDEN CITY…

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

Date published: Apr 11, 1994

Citations

203 A.D.2d 317 (N.Y. App. Div. 1994)
610 N.Y.S.2d 549

Citing Cases

Heritage v. Patel

On this appeal the defendant seeks to raise again the same issues that were decided by this Court on the…

Dempster v. Dempster

Here, the record supports the court's conclusion as to the valuation of the husband's business. The…