Ames Department Stores, Inc. v. Assessor of Evans

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Ames Department Stores, Inc. v. Assessor of Evans

126 A.D.2d 990, 511 N.Y.S.2d 707, 1987 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 42131

CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York

DecidedJanuary 23, 1987

StatusPublished

Cited by3 cases

This text of 126 A.D.2d 990 (Ames Department Stores, Inc. v. Assessor of Evans) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Ames Department Stores, Inc. v. Assessor of Evans, 126 A.D.2d 990, 511 N.Y.S.2d 707, 1987 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 42131 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1987).

Pincite

Opinion

—Order unanimously reversed, on the law, without costs, and respondents’ motion denied. Memorandum. Petitioner asserts that it was error for Trial Term to grant respondents’ motion to dismiss its action under Real Property Tax Law article 7 on the grounds that petitioner does not have legal capacity to bring the action and that the petition was not properly verified. We agree. Because petitioner is responsible under its lease for taxes on the leased premises, it is an "aggrieved person” under Real Property Tax Law article 7 (Matter of Ames Dept. Stores v Assessor of Town of Concord, 102 AD2d 9). Secondly, respondents waived any objection based on improper verification by failing to give notice of their objection with due diligence (Matter of Extrom v Town of Skaneateles, 112 AD2d 35; Matter of Ames Dept. Stores v Assessor of Town of Concord, supra, p 13). (Appeal from order of Supreme Court, Erie County, Ricotta, J.—Real Property Tax Law art 7.) Present— Denman, J. P., Boomer, Balio, Lawton and Davis, JJ.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

—Order unanimously reversed, on the law, without costs, and respondents’ motion denied. Memorandum. Petitioner asserts that it was error for Trial Term to grant respondents’ motion to dismiss its action under Real Property Tax Law article 7 on the grounds that petitioner does not have legal capacity to bring the action and that the petition was not properly verified. We agree. Because petitioner is responsible under its lease for taxes on the leased premises, it is an "aggrieved person” under Real Property Tax Law article 7 (Matter of Ames Dept. Stores v Assessor of Town of Concord, 102 AD2d 9). Secondly, respondents waived any objection based on improper verification by failing to give notice of their objection with due diligence (Matter of Extrom v Town of Skaneateles, 112 AD2d 35; Matter of Ames Dept. Stores v Assessor of Town of Concord, supra, p 13). (Appeal from order of Supreme Court, Erie County, Ricotta, J.—Real Property Tax Law art 7.) Present— Denman, J. P., Boomer, Balio, Lawton and Davis, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

126 A.D.2d 990, 511 N.Y.S.2d 707, 1987 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 42131, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/ames-department-stores-inc-v-assessor-of-evans-nyappdiv-1987.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack