Howlands Lake Partners, L.P. v. Town of Dover
| Decision Date | 25 January 2017 |
| Citation | 46 N.Y.S.3d 153,146 A.D.3d 952,2017 N.Y. Slip Op. 00468 |
| Parties | In the Matter of HOWLANDS LAKE PARTNERS, L.P., appellant, v. TOWN OF DOVER, et al., respondents-respondents, Dover Union Free School District, intervenor-respondent. |
| Court | New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division |
146 A.D.3d 952
46 N.Y.S.3d 153
2017 N.Y. Slip Op. 00468
In the Matter of HOWLANDS LAKE PARTNERS, L.P., appellant,
v.
TOWN OF DOVER, et al., respondents-respondents,
Dover Union Free School District, intervenor-respondent.
Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Second Department, New York.
Jan. 25, 2017.
Biersdorf & Associates, Buffalo, NY (Dan Biersdorf of counsel), for appellant.
Goldman Attorneys PLLC, Albany, NY (Paul J. Goldman of counsel), and Shaw, Perelson, May & Lambert, LLP, Valhalla, NY (Marc E. Sharff of counsel), for respondents-respondents Town of Dover and Board of Assessment Review for Town of Dover and intervenor-respondent (one brief filed).
REINALDO E. RIVERA, J.P., LEONARD B. AUSTIN, JEFFREY A. COHEN, and VALERIE BRATHWAITE NELSON, JJ.
Appeal from an order and judgment (one paper) of the Supreme Court, Dutchess County (James V. Brands, J.) dated September 17, 2014. The order and judgment granted the respondents' motion to dismiss the tax certiorari proceedings, made at the close of the petitioner's case, and, in effect, dismissed the proceedings.
ORDERED that the order and judgment is affirmed, with costs.
The petitioner owns five adjoining parcels of real property in the Town of Dover. The petitioner filed petitions pursuant to Real Property Tax Law (hereinafter RPTL) article 7 challenging the annual assessments on each of the five parcels for the years 1996 through 2010. Prior to trial, the petitioner withdrew its challenges with respect to four out of the five parcels and elected to proceed with its claims as to the parcel identified in tax assessment records as containing 54.6 acres and certain improvements (hereinafter the subject parcel). One of the four other parcels, which is adjacent to the south side of the subject parcel, is identified in the assessment records as containing approximately 20 acres of vacant land (hereinafter the south parcel).
At trial, the petitioner's sole witness, its appraiser, testified that his valuation of the subject parcel...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Porter v. Moore
...the evidence adduced at the hearing supported the issuance of the order of protection (see Matter of Crenshaw v. Thorpe–Crenshaw, 146 A.D.3d at 952, 45 N.Y.S.3d 555...
-
Crenshaw v. Thorpe-Crenshaw
...appeal has not been rendered academic " ‘given the totality of the enduring legal and reputational consequences of the contested order 146 A.D.3d 952of protection’ " (Matter of Pierre v. Dal, 142 A.D.3d 1021, 1022, 37 N.Y.S.3d 317, quoting Matter of Veronica P. v. Radcliff A., 24 N.Y.3d 668......
-
Reeder v. Health Ins. Plan of Greater N.Y.
...955 N.Y.S.2d 650 ; Mule v. Peloro, 60 A.D.3d 649, 650, 875 N.Y.S.2d 146 ; Solomonik v. Elahi, 282 A.D.2d 734, 735, 725 N.Y.S.2d 49 ).46 N.Y.S.3d 153 The continuous treatment toll is personal to the child and is not available to extend the time by which the plaintiff was required to assert h......