Clay Dome & Golf Center, LLC v. Board of Assessors

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Clay Dome & Golf Center, LLC v. Board of Assessors

300 A.D.2d 1092, 751 N.Y.S.2d 898

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

DecidedDecember 30, 2002

StatusPublished

Cited by7 cases

This text of 300 A.D.2d 1092 (Clay Dome & Golf Center, LLC v. Board of Assessors) 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

Clay Dome & Golf Center, LLC v. Board of Assessors, 300 A.D.2d 1092, 751 N.Y.S.2d 898 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2002).

Pincite

Opinion

—Appeal from that part of an order of Supreme Court, Onondaga County (Roy, J.), entered December 4, 2001, that granted the motion of respondent Liverpool Central School District to dismiss the petition against it.

It is hereby ordered that the order so appealed from be and the same hereby is unanimously affirmed without costs.

Memorandum: Supreme Court properly granted the motion of respondent Liverpool Central School District (District) to dismiss the petition against it in this RPTL article 7 proceeding based on petitioner’s failure to comply with RPTL 708 (3) by timely mailing a copy of the petition to the District’s superintendent. “The mistake or omission of petitioner’s at[1093]*1093torney does not constitute ‘good cause shown’ within the meaning of RPTL 708 (3) to excuse petitioner’s failure to comply with that section” (Matter of First Source Fed. Credit Union v Stuhlman, 267 AD2d 1026, 1027, lv denied 95 NY2d 758). Present — Pigott, Jr., P.J., Green, Hayes, Scudder and Lawton, JJ.

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

—Appeal from that part of an order of Supreme Court, Onondaga County (Roy, J.), entered December 4, 2001, that granted the motion of respondent Liverpool Central School District to dismiss the petition against it.

It is hereby ordered that the order so appealed from be and the same hereby is unanimously affirmed without costs.

Memorandum: Supreme Court properly granted the motion of respondent Liverpool Central School District (District) to dismiss the petition against it in this RPTL article 7 proceeding based on petitioner’s failure to comply with RPTL 708 (3) by timely mailing a copy of the petition to the District’s superintendent. “The mistake or omission of petitioner’s at[1093]*1093torney does not constitute ‘good cause shown’ within the meaning of RPTL 708 (3) to excuse petitioner’s failure to comply with that section” (Matter of First Source Fed. Credit Union v Stuhlman, 267 AD2d 1026, 1027, lv denied 95 NY2d 758). Present — Pigott, Jr., P.J., Green, Hayes, Scudder and Lawton, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

300 A.D.2d 1092, 751 N.Y.S.2d 898, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/clay-dome-golf-center-llc-v-board-of-assessors-nyappdiv-2002.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack