From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Matter of City, Amsterdam v. Bd. of Assessors

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Third Department
Jun 13, 1985
111 A.D.2d 1017 (N.Y. App. Div. 1985)

Opinion

June 13, 1985

Appeal from the Supreme Court, Saratoga County (Dier, J.).


By motion dated August 17, 1984, petitioner sought permission pursuant to 22 NYCRR 839.2 to file and serve a supplement to its appraisal report. Specifically, this supplemental report prepared by an engineer detailed the question of depreciation of certain improvements on petitioner's real property. Special Term granted this motion and the instant appeal ensued.

The sole issue presented on appeal is whether Special Term abused its discretion in granting the motion. After conducting a review of the record, we conclude that Special Term abused its discretion. We do not find that the requisite "good cause" has been established to permit an exception to the strict standards imposed by prior decisions of this court ( see, Salesian Socy. v Village of Ellenville, 98 A.D.2d 927, 928).

Order reversed, on the law and the facts, with costs, and motion denied. Kane, J.P., Main, Mikoll, Yesawich, Jr. and Harvey, JJ., concur.


Summaries of

Matter of City, Amsterdam v. Bd. of Assessors

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Third Department
Jun 13, 1985
111 A.D.2d 1017 (N.Y. App. Div. 1985)
Case details for

Matter of City, Amsterdam v. Bd. of Assessors

Case Details

Full title:In the Matter of the CITY OF AMSTERDAM, Respondent, v. BOARD OF ASSESSORS…

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

Date published: Jun 13, 1985

Citations

111 A.D.2d 1017 (N.Y. App. Div. 1985)

Citing Cases

Matter of Prop. by the Twn. of Guilderland

In exercising its discretion to determine whether a party has shown "good cause" for relieving a default in…

Matter of City of Albany

Petitioners argue that because claimant would not have been prejudiced by the late reception of their…