People ex rel. Poor v. O'Donnel

2 Citing cases

  1. Radisson Community v. Long

    28 A.D.3d 88 (N.Y. App. Div. 2006)   Cited 5 times

    At trial, petitioner failed to establish that the assessment of the common property resulted in unconstitutional double taxation. Petitioner's reliance on People ex rel. Poor v. Wells ( 139 App Div 83, 85-87, affd sub nom. People ex rel. Poor v. O'Donnel, 200 NY 519) thus is misplaced, because in that case the assessments of the dominant estates included the value of the common parcels. Indeed, petitioner's appraiser expressly testified that the Radisson homes had no enhanced value based on their easements in the common parcels ( see Matter of Mountain Meadows Campers Assn. v. Pilkington, 86 NY2d 849, 850).

  2. Grandview v. Bd. of Assessors

    176 Misc. 2d 901 (N.Y. Sup. Ct. 1998)   Cited 3 times

    The court concludes that the parcels have no market value since a prospective purchaser would acquire no beneficial interest or incidents of ownership, only bare legal title. (See, People ex rel. Poor v O'Donnel, 139 App. Div. 83 [1st Dept 1910], affd 200 N.Y. 519.) In contrast, the other lot owners in the subdivision recognize an increase in the value of their dominant estate which is properly reflected in their tax assessment.