Matter of Sumkin v. Town of Babylon

1 Citing case

  1. In re County of Broome

    86 A.D.3d 817 (N.Y. App. Div. 2011)   Cited 2 times

    Nonetheless, respondent did not avail himself of that opportunity inasmuch as he failed to communicate the nature of his objections to the order and/or the bill. Under these circumstances, the "failure to conduct a hearing did not deprive [respondent] of due process" ( Matter of Sumkin v Town of Babylon, 238 AD2d 430, appeal dismissed 91 NY2d 848), and the proper vehicle for challenging the City's assessment of the mowing charge was a timely CPLR article 78 proceeding ( see NYCTL 1998-2 Trust v T Jan Realty Corp., 63 AD3d 810, 811; Trager v Town of Clifton Park, 303 AD2d 875, 877-878). Had the City failed to consider any substantive objections made by respondent, respondent could have obtained judicial review of the merits thereof in such a proceeding.