Opinion
No. CA 08-00058.
March 21, 2008.
Appeal from a judgment (denominated judgment and order) of the Supreme Court, Monroe County (Kenneth R. Fisher, J.), entered January 4, 2008 in a CPLR article 78 proceeding/declaratory judgment action. The judgment, inter alia, granted declaratory relief in favor of defendants-respondents.
JAMES R. SANDNER, LATHAM (ROBERT T. REILLY OF COUNSEL), FOR PLAINTIFFS-PETITIONERS-APPELLANTS. WOODS OVIATT GILMAN LLP, ROCHESTER (SEAN T. HANNA OF COUNSEL), FOR DEFENDANTS-RESPONDENTS-RESPONDENTS.
Present: Hurlbutt, J.P., Martoche, Centra, Green and Gorski, JJ.
It is hereby ordered that the judgment so appealed from is unanimously modified on the law by vacating the decretal paragraphs granting declaratory and other relief with respect to the meaning of Tax Law § 1261 (f) (8) and by granting judgment in favor of plaintiffs-petitioners as follows:
"It is ADJUDGED and DECLARED that defendant-respondent County of Monroe is obligated to allocate to those school districts in Monroe County that are outside the City of Rochester their full statutory share of sales tax net collections, as defined in Tax Law § 1262 (f) (1), undiminished by the election of the sales tax intercept option and as modified the judgment is affirmed without costs."
Memorandum: For the reasons stated in our decision in Matter of Monroe County Pub. School Dists. v Zyra ( 51 AD3d 125), we modify the judgment by vacating the decretal paragraphs granting declaratory and other relief with respect to the meaning of Tax Law § 1261 (f) (8), and by granting plaintiffs-petitioners (plaintiffs) the same declaratory relief granted in that case. We note in addition that plaintiffs have standing herein by virtue of their status as taxpayers ( see General Municipal Law § 51; Matter of Bernstein v Feiner, 13 AD3d 519, 520-521; see generally Matter of Korn v Gulotta, 72 NY2d 363, 371-372), and that there were no Open Meetings Law or other notice violations requiring nullification of the actions taken by defendant-respondent Monroe County Legislature on September 26, 2007. Finally, "[b]ecause a compelling nonconstitutional ground resolves this appeal, we refrain . . . from addressing the constitutional issues raised" ( Matter of Clara C. v William L., 96 NY2d 244, 250). [ See 18 Misc 3d 1127(A), 2007 NY Slip Op 52533(U) (2008).]