Dayho Motel v. Assessor of Town of Orangetown

• Decision Date: 08 July 1996
• Citation: Dayho Motel v. Assessor of Town of Orangetown, 645 N.Y.S.2d 87, 229 A.D.2d 435 (N.Y. App. Div. 1996)
• Parties: In the Matter of DAYHO MOTEL, Petitioner-Respondent, v. ASSESSOR OF the TOWN OF ORANGETOWN, et al., Respondents-Respondents; South Orangetown Central School District, Intervenor-Appellant.
• Court: New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division

Page 87

645 N.Y.S.2d 87

229 A.D.2d 435

In the Matter of DAYHO MOTEL, Petitioner-Respondent, v.ASSESSOR OF the TOWN OF ORANGETOWN, et al., Respondents-RespondentsSouth Orangetown Central School District, Intervenor-Appellant.

Supreme Court, Appellate Division Second Department.

July 8, 1996.

Raymond G. Kuntz, P.C., Bedford Village, for intervenor-appellant.

Cronin, Cronin & Harris, P.C., Mineola (Laureen Harris and Neil Schaier, of counsel), for petitioner-respondent.

Before BRACKEN, J.P., and MILLER, JOY, HART and KRAUSMAN, JJ.

MEMORANDUM BY THE COURT.

In a tax certiorari proceeding pursuant to Real Property Tax Law article 7, the intervenorSouth Orangetown Central School District appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Rockland County(Palella, J.), dated May 4, 1995, which granted the petitioner's application to reduce an assessment on real property in accordance with a stipulation of settlement entered into in open court.

ORDERED that the order is reversed, on the law, with costs, the oral stipulation of settlement is vacated and the motion is denied.

The petitioner commenced this tax certiorari proceeding to reduce the taxes levied against certain property it owns in the Town of Orangetown, Rockland County.During the proceeding, the attorneys for each of the interested parties reached an agreement settling the petitioner's claim and entered into an oral stipulation of settlement in open court.

However, the Board of Education for the intervenorSouth Orangetown Central School District(hereinafter the School District) refused to approve the settlement made by its attorney and thereafter the attorneys for the School District and the Town of Orangetown refused to execute a written stipulation of settlement reflecting the oral agreement.The petitioner thereupon moved to enforce the oral stipulation of settlement.In an affidavit in support of the motion, the petitioner's counsel stated, inter alia, that there were no conditions precedent to the stipulation.

In opposition to the petitioner's motion, the attorney for the School District affirmed that he had told the petitioner's counsel that "any settlement we reached would have to be approved by the Board of Education".In addition, he stated that he had "negotiated settlements to a number of tax certiorari cases with [petitioner's counsel].In every case the settlement has been contingent upon approval by the Board of Education".These assertions were corroborated by a Deputy Town Attorney and were not refuted by the...