Autokefalos Orthodox Spiritual Church of Saint George v. City of Mount Vernon

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Autokefalos Orthodox Spiritual Church of Saint George v. City of Mount Vernon

283 A.D. 801, 128 N.Y.S.2d 462, 1954 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5371

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

DecidedMarch 8, 1954

StatusPublished

Cited by4 cases

This text of 283 A.D. 801 (Autokefalos Orthodox Spiritual Church of Saint George v. City of Mount Vernon) 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

Autokefalos Orthodox Spiritual Church of Saint George v. City of Mount Vernon, 283 A.D. 801, 128 N.Y.S.2d 462, 1954 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5371 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1954).

Pincite

Opinion

In a proceeding under article 78 of the Civil Practice Act, petitioners appeal from an order dismissing their petition, on the merits. Order modified on the law by striking from the first ordering paragraph the words “ upon the merits ” and by substituting therefor “ without prejudice to any right of action which the petitioners may have to cancel assessments or to enjoin the collection of tax liens ”, and as so modified order unanimously affirmed, without costs. If timely instituted, appellants had the right in this proceeding to seek relief if their real property was, as alleged, exempt from taxation by reason of the provisions of subdivision 6 of section 4 of the Tax Law. (Matter of State Ins. Fund v. Boyland, 282 App. Div. 516.) The petition was grounded on the contention that respondents acted without jurisdiction. The orders in the former proceedings to review assessments for the years prior to 1949, and the judgment in the action to foreclose such liens, were not res judicata here and the failure to reply to the allegations of the defenses did not warrant dismissal of the petition on the pleadings as to appellant church. (Cf. People ex rel. Hilton v. Fahrenkopf, 279 N. Y. 49, and People ex rel. Western N. Y. <& Pa. By. Co. v. State Bd. of Tax Comrs., 256 App. Div. 104, 107, affd. 281 N. Y. 639.) Neither did the failure to reply to such defenses justify the dismissal of the petition as to appellant foundation. The defenses did not allege that there had been any sale under the judgment in the action to foreclose the tax liens. Until sale, appellants were the owners. (Cf. Prudence Co. v. 160 W. 73rd St. Corp., 260 N. Y. 205, 211, and Trimm v. Marsh, 54 N. Y. 599, 605.) However, while a proceeding such as was here instituted was open to the appellants and was not controlled by the provisions of article 13 of the Tax Law (§ 290 et seq.), on its face the petition shows that it was not commenced within four months from what are alleged to have been demands duly made upon respondents for performance of their duty enjoined by law (Civ. Prac. Act, § 1286). Present — Adel, Acting P. J., Wenzel, MaeCrate, Schmidt and Murphy, JJ.

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

In a proceeding under article 78 of the Civil Practice Act, petitioners appeal from an order dismissing their petition, on the merits. Order modified on the law by striking from the first ordering paragraph the words “ upon the merits ” and by substituting therefor “ without prejudice to any right of action which the petitioners may have to cancel assessments or to enjoin the collection of tax liens ”, and as so modified order unanimously affirmed, without costs. If timely instituted, appellants had the right in this proceeding to seek relief if their real property was, as alleged, exempt from taxation by reason of the provisions of subdivision 6 of section 4 of the Tax Law. (Matter of State Ins. Fund v. Boyland, 282 App. Div. 516.) The petition was grounded on the contention that respondents acted without jurisdiction. The orders in the former proceedings to review assessments for the years prior to 1949, and the judgment in the action to foreclose such liens, were not res judicata here and the failure to reply to the allegations of the defenses did not warrant dismissal of the petition on the pleadings as to appellant church. (Cf. People ex rel. Hilton v. Fahrenkopf, 279 N. Y. 49, and People ex rel. Western N. Y. <& Pa. By. Co. v. State Bd. of Tax Comrs., 256 App. Div. 104, 107, affd. 281 N. Y. 639.) Neither did the failure to reply to such defenses justify the dismissal of the petition as to appellant foundation. The defenses did not allege that there had been any sale under the judgment in the action to foreclose the tax liens. Until sale, appellants were the owners. (Cf. Prudence Co. v. 160 W. 73rd St. Corp., 260 N. Y. 205, 211, and Trimm v. Marsh, 54 N. Y. 599, 605.) However, while a proceeding such as was here instituted was open to the appellants and was not controlled by the provisions of article 13 of the Tax Law (§ 290 et seq.), on its face the petition shows that it was not commenced within four months from what are alleged to have been demands duly made upon respondents for performance of their duty enjoined by law (Civ. Prac. Act, § 1286). Present — Adel, Acting P. J., Wenzel, MaeCrate, Schmidt and Murphy, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

283 A.D. 801, 128 N.Y.S.2d 462, 1954 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5371, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/autokefalos-orthodox-spiritual-church-of-saint-george-v-city-of-mount-nyappdiv-1954.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack