Bay Village Condominiums v. Gilkinson

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Bay Village Condominiums v. Gilkinson

251 A.D.2d 1019, 673 N.Y.S.2d 961, 1998 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 7046

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

DecidedJune 10, 1998

StatusPublished

This text of 251 A.D.2d 1019 (Bay Village Condominiums v. Gilkinson) 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

Bay Village Condominiums v. Gilkinson, 251 A.D.2d 1019, 673 N.Y.S.2d 961, 1998 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 7046 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1998).

Pincite

Opinion

—Order unanimously affirmed without costs. Memorandum: Supreme Court properly granted respondents’ motion to dismiss the petition seeking review of the tax assessment for the 1996-1997 tax year as barred by RPTL 727 (1). On appeal, petitioner contends that the statute is unconstitutional but its motion papers submitted in opposition to respondents’ motion do not mention the constitutionality of the statute. The first reference to that issue in the record is a finding by the court in its decision that petitioner failed to meet its burden of establishing the unconstitutionality of the statute. On this record, we agree with that finding. (Appeal from Order of Supreme Court, Monroe County, Fisher, J. — RPTL.) Present — Green, J. P., Pine, Hayes, Callahan and Fallon, JJ.

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

—Order unanimously affirmed without costs. Memorandum: Supreme Court properly granted respondents’ motion to dismiss the petition seeking review of the tax assessment for the 1996-1997 tax year as barred by RPTL 727 (1). On appeal, petitioner contends that the statute is unconstitutional but its motion papers submitted in opposition to respondents’ motion do not mention the constitutionality of the statute. The first reference to that issue in the record is a finding by the court in its decision that petitioner failed to meet its burden of establishing the unconstitutionality of the statute. On this record, we agree with that finding. (Appeal from Order of Supreme Court, Monroe County, Fisher, J. — RPTL.) Present — Green, J. P., Pine, Hayes, Callahan and Fallon, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

251 A.D.2d 1019, 673 N.Y.S.2d 961, 1998 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 7046, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/bay-village-condominiums-v-gilkinson-nyappdiv-1998.