From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Matter, Wallkill Ind. Dev. v. Assr., Wallkill

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Mar 30, 2000
270 A.D.2d 494 (N.Y. App. Div. 2000)

Opinion

Argued February 15, 2000

March 30, 2000

In nineteen consolidated tax certiorari proceedings pursuant toReal Property Tax Law article 7 to review real property tax assessments on the petitioner's property, the petitioner appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Orange County (Palella, J.), dated October 8, 1998, which granted the respondents' motion to compel arbitration and stayed all proceedings.

Graubard Mollen Miller, New York, N.Y. (Edward H. Pomeranz and Kevin B. McGrath of counsel), for appellant.

Santemma and Deutsch, LLP, Mineola, N.Y. (Jon N. Santemma, Andrew M. Mahony, and Eugene K. Ferencik of counsel), for respondents.

DAVID S. RITTER, J.P., SONDRA MILLER, LEO F. McGINITY, SANDRA J. FEUERSTEIN, JJ.


DECISION ORDER

ORDERED that the order is affirmed, with costs.

The Supreme Court correctly concluded that the unambiguous language of the arbitration clause in the parties' "payments in lieu of taxes" agreement (see generally, Matter of EFCO Prods. v. Cullen, 161 A.D.2d 44 ) constituted an effective and enforceable contract demonstrating the parties' agreement to resolve their real property tax assessment disputes through arbitration (see,Baker v. Cole-Layer-Trumble Co., 42 A.D.2d 581 ). Furthermore, the court properly determined that the respondents did not waive their right to proceed to arbitration based on the parties' correspondence and course of conduct.

The appellant's remaining contentions are without merit.

RITTER, J.P., S. MILLER, McGINITY, and FEUERSTEIN, JJ., concur.

DECISION ORDER ON MOTION

Motion by the respondents on an appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Orange County, dated October 8, 1998, to strike pages 371 to 572 of the record on appeal on the ground that they contain matter dehors the record. By decision and order of this court dated November 19, 1999, the motion was held in abeyance and was referred to the Justices hearing the appeal for determination upon the argument or submission thereof.

Upon the papers filed in support of the motion, the papers filed in opposition thereto, and upon the argument of the appeal, it is

ORDERED that the motion is denied.

RITTER, J.P., S. MILLER, McGINITY, and FEUERSTEIN, JJ., concur.


Summaries of

Matter, Wallkill Ind. Dev. v. Assr., Wallkill

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Mar 30, 2000
270 A.D.2d 494 (N.Y. App. Div. 2000)
Case details for

Matter, Wallkill Ind. Dev. v. Assr., Wallkill

Case Details

Full title:IN THE MATTER OF TOWN OF WALLKILL INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT AGENCY, ETC.…

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

Date published: Mar 30, 2000

Citations

270 A.D.2d 494 (N.Y. App. Div. 2000)
705 N.Y.S.2d 282

Citing Cases

In re Metropolitan Life Ins. Co. v. Harlow

To the extent (if any) that the right to challenge an assessment that has not been recently changed by the…

In Matter of Hann. Bros. v. Board of Asse. Rev.

That tactic is simply not acceptable. The Court acknowledges the holding in Matter of Metropolitan Life…