Board of Assessors v. Hammer

181 A.D.2d 885, 581 N.Y.S.2d 423, 1992 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5246
CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York
DecidedMarch 30, 1992
StatusPublished
Cited by3 cases

This text of 181 A.D.2d 885 (Board of Assessors v. Hammer) 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
Board of Assessors v. Hammer, 181 A.D.2d 885, 581 N.Y.S.2d 423, 1992 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5246 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1992).

Opinion

— In a hybrid proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78, inter alia, to review determinations of Small Claims Assessment Review Hearing Officers acting under RPTL, article 7, title 1-A, and for a judgment declaring that the respondent George A. Hammer, Jr., practiced law without a license in violation of the Judiciary Law, the petitioners appeal from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Suffolk County (Cromarty, J.), entered December 5, 1990, which dismissed the proceeding.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed, with one bill of costs.

The present proceeding which, inter alia, seeks a declaration that the respondent George A. Hammer, Jr., engaged in the unauthorized practice of law by representing clients in Small Claims Assessment Review (hereinafter SCAR) proceedings in the Supreme Court, Suffolk County, is improperly brought insofar as it attempts to obtain relief pursuant to CPLR article 78 against a private party (see, CPLR 7803). A municipality is not authorized to seek judicial review pursuant to CPLR article 78 of SCAR determinations. In any event, the unauthorized practice of law would not in itself invalidate a civil action or proceeding (see, Matter of Lackas, 65 AD2d 800). Thus, the allegations of the unauthorized practice of law by the respondent Hammer in the instant proceeding would be insufficient, even if proven, to warrant the annulment of the determinations at issue.

We note that the substantive arguments the appellants [886]*886attempt to raise in this proceeding have been raised in Matter of Cipollone v City of White Plains (181 AD2d 887 [decided herewith]), and we have found them to be without merit. Sullivan, J. P., Balletta, Lawrence and Santucci, JJ., concur.

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

Related

Matter of Grocholski Cady Rd., LLC v. Smith
2019 NY Slip Op 1966 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2019)
Village/Town of Scarsdale v. Moore
200 A.D.2d 623 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1994)
Jenkins Covington, N. Y., Inc v. Tax Appeals Tribunal
195 A.D.2d 625 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1993)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
181 A.D.2d 885, 581 N.Y.S.2d 423, 1992 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5246, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/board-of-assessors-v-hammer-nyappdiv-1992.