423 South Salina Street, Inc. v. City of Syracuse

• Citation: 112 A.D.2d 745,492 N.Y.S.2d 241
• Parties: 423 SOUTH SALINA STREET, INC., Appellant, v. CITY OF SYRACUSE, a Municipal Corporation, Metropolitan Development Foundation of Central New York, Inc., a Not-For-Profit Corporation and Amlea (New York), Inc., a Business Corporation, Respondents.
• Decision Date: 12 July 1985
• Court: New York Supreme Court Appellate Division

Page 241

492 N.Y.S.2d 241

112 A.D.2d 745

423 SOUTH SALINA STREET, INC., Appellant, v. CITY OF SYRACUSE, a Municipal Corporation, Metropolitan Development Foundation of Central New York, Inc., a Not-For-Profit Corporation and Amlea (New York), Inc., a Business Corporation, Respondents.

Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Fourth Department.

July 12, 1985.

Mousaw, Vigdor, Reeves, Heilbronner & Kroll by Justin Vigdor, Rochester, for appellant.

David M. Garber, Corp. Counsel by James Gelormini, Syracuse, for respondent City of Syracuse.

Hancock & Estabrook by William Allen, Syracuse, for respondents Metropolitan & Amlea.

Before CALLAHAN, J.P., and BOOMER, GREEN, PINE and SCHNEPP, JJ.

MEMORANDUM:

Plaintiff appeals from an order dismissing its complaint in an action brought under the Federal civil rights statute (42 U.S.C. § 1983) alleging that the City of Syracuse deprived it of its property by continually grossly over-assessing its property after the assessments had been reduced by the courts in tax reduction proceedings.

We affirm because the complaint fails to state a cause of action. Although an aggravated and persistent pattern of tax abuse may constitute a taking or a deprivation of property in violation of a property owner's civil rights, the facts alleged in the complaint show that "plaintiff was not the one subjected to this unlawful conduct" (W.T. Grant Co. v. Srogi, 52 N.Y.2d 496, 517-518, 438 N.Y.S.2d 761, 420 N.E.2d 953). In this action, therefore, plaintiff cannot rely upon the violation of its predecessor's constitutional rights, and following the reasoning of the Court of Appeals in W.T. Grant Co. v. Srogi (supra), we find that the City's conduct directed against the plaintiff was insufficient to constitute a taking or a deprivation of property in violation of plaintiff's civil rights.

Order unanimously affirmed without costs.