Board of Education, Central School District No. 7 v. Town of Islip

15 A.D.2d 789, 224 N.Y.S.2d 699, 1962 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 11581
CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York
DecidedFebruary 13, 1962
StatusPublished
Cited by3 cases

This text of 15 A.D.2d 789 (Board of Education, Central School District No. 7 v. Town of Islip) 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 Education, Central School District No. 7 v. Town of Islip, 15 A.D.2d 789, 224 N.Y.S.2d 699, 1962 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 11581 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1962).

Opinion

In dismissing the complaint, the Special Term held that plaintiff did not have legal capacity to sue, since it was not a party aggrieved by the assessor’s determination that the airport property was exempt from taxation. While it is doubtful that the motion was properly made on the ground stated (cf. Kittinger v. Churchill Evangelistic Assn., 239 App. Div. 253, 256; Field v. Allen, 9 A D 2d 551), the parties have treated the motion as one involving the legal sufficiency of the complaint; we consider the appeal accordingly (cf. Stevenson v. News Syndicate Co., 302 N. Y. 81, 87). It is our opinion that the complaint was properly [790]*790dismissed. Under the applicable provisions of the Suffolk County Tax Act (see, e.g., §§ 1, 3, 7, 8, 10; L. 1920 ,ch. 311, as amd.), which supersede and which are controlling over inconsistent provisions of the Tax Law (Suffolk County Tax Act, § 32), plaintiff has no power or duty with respect to the assessment or collection of taxes. Its budget is met by taxes on the property on the assessment roll subject to taxation; and plaintiff therefore has no direct interest in the question of whether property has been improperly exempted from taxation. Under the circumstances presented, plaintiff is not aggrieved by the assessor’s determination that the airport is exempt, and no justiciable controversy is presented for determination (cf. Robert E. Tompkins, Inc., v. Security Trust Co, of Rochester, 277 App. Div. 1090; Standardbred Owners Assn. v. Yonkers Raceway, 1 A D 2d 882; see, also, Matter of City of New York v. New York Univ., 3 A D 2d 954). Ughetta, Acting P. J., Kleinfeld, Brennan, Rabin and Hopkins, JJ,, concur.

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

Related

Walker v. Board of Assessors
103 A.D.2d 580 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1984)
Walker v. Board of Assessors
118 Misc. 2d 467 (New York Supreme Court, 1983)
Flacke v. Freshwater Wetlands Appeals Board
77 A.D.2d 66 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1980)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
15 A.D.2d 789, 224 N.Y.S.2d 699, 1962 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 11581, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/board-of-education-central-school-district-no-7-v-town-of-islip-nyappdiv-1962.