Opinion
October 9, 1984
Appeal from the Supreme Court, Westchester County (Sullivan, J.).
Order affirmed, without costs or disbursements.
The evidence did not demonstrate such pleading, appearance and informational deficiencies at the protest level necessary for the grant of the appellants' pretrial motion to dismiss (see People ex rel. Irving Sav. Bank v Howes, 266 App. Div. 1024; Matter of Hilton Inns v Board of Assessors, 39 Misc.2d 792; cf. Matter of Spencer v Mullen, 84 A.D.2d 790, and cases cited therein). This is particularly the case because the board of review had the benefit of information supplied by both the major tenant and by the landlord. The protests filed by the landlord (Levin Properties) and by the major tenant (Caldor) involve the same shopping center and the assessment for the entire parcel. Thus, the board of review treated the matter as a single complaint, as evidenced by its resolution of March 14, 1983, which stated that: "IT IS RESOLVED that the complaint, dated February 11, 1983, brought upon behalf of Levin Properties, as owner, and the complaint, dated February 14, 1983, brought on behalf of Caldor, Inc., as net tenant, are, in effect, one single complaint". Mangano, J.P., Gibbons, O'Connor and Boyers, JJ., concur.