City of Rochester v. Assessors of Town of Canadice

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

City of Rochester v. Assessors of Town of Canadice

136 A.D.2d 966, 524 N.Y.S.2d 944, 1988 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 1307

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

DecidedJanuary 29, 1988

StatusPublished

This text of 136 A.D.2d 966 (City of Rochester v. Assessors of Town of Canadice) 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

City of Rochester v. Assessors of Town of Canadice, 136 A.D.2d 966, 524 N.Y.S.2d 944, 1988 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 1307 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1988).

Pincite

Opinion

Judgment unanimously modified on the law and as modified affirmed without costs, in accordance with the following memorandum: On appeal from a judgment reducing certain of the 1980-1986 tax assessments on petitioner’s real property in the Town of Canadice, we find that it was error for the court to reduce the assessments on 9 of the 23 tax parcels concerning which the city had "no complaint” for the tax year 1980. The limits of judicial review in a tax certiorari proceeding are established by the application for review (Matter of City of Little Falls v Board of Assessors, 68 AD2d 734, 739), and protest is a condition precedent to maintaining a proceeding under RPTL article 7 (Matter of Sterling Estates v Board of Assessors, 66 NY2d 122, 126). Thus, the court had no jurisdiction to review the assessments on unprotested property Matter of Sterling Estates v Board of Assessors, supra, at 127) and the town’s 1980 assessments on those parcels must be reinstated.

Additionally, although we agree that it was proper for the court to adopt the city’s comparable sales, it should have excluded the Union Lake sale because the proof established that it was not comparable. Deletion of that sale, however, does not affect the city’s adjusted valuation.

[967]*967We have considered the town’s remaining contentions and conclude that they are without merit. (Appeal from judgment of Supreme Court, Ontario County, Conway, J.H.O.—tax certiorari.) Present—Denman, J. P., Boomer, Pine, Lawton and Davis, JJ.

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

Judgment unanimously modified on the law and as modified affirmed without costs, in accordance with the following memorandum: On appeal from a judgment reducing certain of the 1980-1986 tax assessments on petitioner’s real property in the Town of Canadice, we find that it was error for the court to reduce the assessments on 9 of the 23 tax parcels concerning which the city had "no complaint” for the tax year 1980. The limits of judicial review in a tax certiorari proceeding are established by the application for review (Matter of City of Little Falls v Board of Assessors, 68 AD2d 734, 739), and protest is a condition precedent to maintaining a proceeding under RPTL article 7 (Matter of Sterling Estates v Board of Assessors, 66 NY2d 122, 126). Thus, the court had no jurisdiction to review the assessments on unprotested property Matter of Sterling Estates v Board of Assessors, supra, at 127) and the town’s 1980 assessments on those parcels must be reinstated.

Additionally, although we agree that it was proper for the court to adopt the city’s comparable sales, it should have excluded the Union Lake sale because the proof established that it was not comparable. Deletion of that sale, however, does not affect the city’s adjusted valuation.

[967]*967We have considered the town’s remaining contentions and conclude that they are without merit. (Appeal from judgment of Supreme Court, Ontario County, Conway, J.H.O.—tax certiorari.) Present—Denman, J. P., Boomer, Pine, Lawton and Davis, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

136 A.D.2d 966, 524 N.Y.S.2d 944, 1988 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 1307, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/city-of-rochester-v-assessors-of-town-of-canadice-nyappdiv-1988.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack