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

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York·Decided December 30, 2002·Published·Cited by 7 cases

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] torney 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] torney 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.

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

300 A.D.2d 1092 (Clay Dome & Golf Center, LLC v. Board of Assessors) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related