Mendick v. Sterling, 1
| Decision Date | 09 July 1981 |
| Docket Number | No. 1,1 |
| Citation | 443 N.Y.S.2d 508,83 A.D.2d 749 |
| Parties | In the Matter of the Application of William B. MENDICK, Respondents, et al, v. John D. STERLING, Jr., Assessor to the Town of Greece et ano, Appellants. Appeal |
| Court | New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division |
Lines, Wilkens, Osborn & Beck, by William Lehman, Rochester, for appellants.
Robinson, Williams, Angeloff & Frank, by Mitchell Williams, Rochester, for respondents.
Before DILLON, P. J., and CARDAMONE, HANCOCK, DENMAN and SCHNEPP, JJ.
In these proceedings under article 7 of the Real Property Tax Law to review assessments on two parcels of land for the tax year 1978-79, respondents appeal from orders which denied their motions to dismiss the petitions. The two parcels make up an apartment complex located on Stone Road in the Town of Greece.
Respondents contend that the statements of complaint filed with the Board of Assessment Review fail to comply with section 512 of the Real Property Tax Law and thus are jurisdictionally defective. As to one parcel, tax account number 1787-500, respondents assert that the statement is neither signed nor verified as called for in the form provided by the Review Board nor is it certified as required by section 512 of the Real Property Tax Law. The same arguments are asserted as to the statement of complaint concerning the second parcel, tax account number 1795-000, except that no claim is made that the statement is not properly signed. None of the claimed defects requires a reversal.
The signature of the authorized agent on the complaint for tax account number 1787-500 was typewritten. Section 512 of the Real Property Tax Law does not require a signature in autograph form; the typed statement is sufficient (General Construction Law, § 46).
Nor is there any merit to respondents' argument that the statements of complaint must be verified. Section 512 of the Real Property Tax Law no longer requires that the statement be under oath (see L.1977, ch. 193, § 1, eff. January 1, 1978).
Section 512 now provides that the statement contain the following certification:
"I certify that all statements made on this application are true and correct to the best of my knowledge and belief and I understand that the making of any willful false statement of material fact herein will subject me to the provisions of the penal law relevant to the making and filing of false instruments."
It is unnecessary in the context of this case to determine whether the absence of certification as required by the statute is a jurisdictional defect (but see People ex rel. Laurelton Development Co., Inc. v. Purdy, 190 App.Div. 957, 179 N.Y.S. 944; Matter of Grey v. Board of Assessors of Town of Bristol, 14 Misc.2d 858, 180 N.Y.S.2d 607...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
IN RE DAYTON SEASIDE ASSOCIATES# 2, LP, 00-10361 (ALG)
...Administrator of the City of New York, 61 A.D.2d 187, 192, 401 N.Y.S.2d 536, 539 (2d Dep't 1978); Matter of Mendick v. Sterling, 83 A.D.2d 749, 443 N.Y.S.2d 508 (4th Dep't 1981); Matter of Foreclosure of Tax Liens by the City of New York, 102 Misc.2d 801, 805, 424 N.Y.S.2d 585 (Sup.Ct., N.Y......
-
Indeck-Corinth Ltd. P'ship v. Assessor for the Town of Corinth
...v. Town of Mamaroneck, 129 A.D.2d 579, 579, 514 N.Y.S.2d 78 [1987] ), including a taxing entity (see e.g. Matter of Mendick v. Sterling, 83 A.D.2d 749, 750, 443 N.Y.S.2d 508 [1981] ). During each of the years in question, respondent Assessor for the Town of Corinth consistently treated peti......
-
Indeck-Corinth Ltd. P'ship v. Assessor for the Town of Corinth
... ... tax-exempt entity (see General Municipal Law § ... 874 [1]). Construction of the facility commenced in 1991 and ... operations began in 1995. In 2004, ... taxing entity (see e.g. Matter of Mendick v ... Sterling, 83 A.D.2d 749, 750 [1981]) ... During ... each ... ...
-
Richard v. Buck
...and the matter remanded for further proceedings, including, if necessary, an inquiry into the husband's current capacity (Sarfaty, 83 A.D.2d at 749; see also Oneida Natl. Bank & Trust Co. of Cent. N.Y. v Unczur, 37 A.D.2d 480, 483-484 [4th Dept 1971]). As an alternate reason for reversal an......