Coca-Cola Bottling Co. v. Assessor of Town of Geddes

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Coca-Cola Bottling Co. v. Assessor of Town of Geddes

241 A.D.2d 958, 661 N.Y.S.2d 384, 1997 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 7909

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

DecidedJuly 3, 1997

StatusPublished

This text of 241 A.D.2d 958 (Coca-Cola Bottling Co. v. Assessor of Town of Geddes) 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

Coca-Cola Bottling Co. v. Assessor of Town of Geddes, 241 A.D.2d 958, 661 N.Y.S.2d 384, 1997 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 7909 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1997).

Pincite

Opinion

Order unanimously reversed on the law without costs, petitions reinstated and matter remitted to Supreme Court for further proceedings in accordance with the following Memorandum: Supreme Court erred in not considering petitioner’s comparable sales because they were not within the Town of Geddes. “The differences between the comparables and the differences between them and [the] subject property are the proper subject of adjustment by expert witnesses and the degree of comparability becomes a question of fact” (Niagara Falls Urban Renewal Agency v 123 Falls Realty, 66 AD2d 1009, 1010, appeal dismissed 46 NY2d 997, lv denied 47 NY2d 711). Whether to receive “ ‘evidence of sales of property beyond the immediate vicinity of the subject property is a matter resting in the sound discretion of the trial judge’ ” (Matter of Great Atl. & Pac. Tea Co. v Kiernan, 42 NY2d 236, 241, quoting Levin v State of New York, 13 NY2d 87, 92).

We therefore remit the matter to Supreme Court to evaluate petitioner’s comparable sales and to make additional findings. A determination based on all of the court’s findings is required. (Appeal from Order of Supreme Court, Onondaga County, Nicholson, J.—RPTL.) Present—Pine, J. P., Lawton, Callahan, Doerr and Balio, JJ.

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

Order unanimously reversed on the law without costs, petitions reinstated and matter remitted to Supreme Court for further proceedings in accordance with the following Memorandum: Supreme Court erred in not considering petitioner’s comparable sales because they were not within the Town of Geddes. “The differences between the comparables and the differences between them and [the] subject property are the proper subject of adjustment by expert witnesses and the degree of comparability becomes a question of fact” (Niagara Falls Urban Renewal Agency v 123 Falls Realty, 66 AD2d 1009, 1010, appeal dismissed 46 NY2d 997, lv denied 47 NY2d 711). Whether to receive “ ‘evidence of sales of property beyond the immediate vicinity of the subject property is a matter resting in the sound discretion of the trial judge’ ” (Matter of Great Atl. & Pac. Tea Co. v Kiernan, 42 NY2d 236, 241, quoting Levin v State of New York, 13 NY2d 87, 92).

We therefore remit the matter to Supreme Court to evaluate petitioner’s comparable sales and to make additional findings. A determination based on all of the court’s findings is required. (Appeal from Order of Supreme Court, Onondaga County, Nicholson, J.—RPTL.) Present—Pine, J. P., Lawton, Callahan, Doerr and Balio, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

241 A.D.2d 958, 661 N.Y.S.2d 384, 1997 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 7909, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/coca-cola-bottling-co-v-assessor-of-town-of-geddes-nyappdiv-1997.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack