Commerce Drive Associates, LLC v. Board of Assessment Review

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Commerce Drive Associates, LLC v. Board of Assessment Review

35 A.D.3d 856, 825 N.Y.S.2d 370

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York·Decided December 26, 2006·Published·Cited by 2 cases

Opinion

In a proceeding pursuant to Real Property Tax Law article 7 to review a real property tax assessment, the appeal is from an order of the Supreme Court, Westchester County (Dickerson, J.), entered January 26, 2006, which denied the motion of the Board of Assessment Review and/or the Board of Assessors of the Town of Woodbury to dismiss the proceeding for lack of personal jurisdiction and granted the petitioner’s cross motion to extend its time to serve the petition pursuant to CPLR 306-b.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

The Supreme Court providently exercised its discretion in denying the appellants’ motion to dismiss the proceeding for lack of personal jurisdiction and in granting the petitioner’s cross motion to extend its time to serve the petition pursuant to CPLR 306-b (see Leader v Maroney, Ponzini & Spencer, 97 NY2d 95, 104-106 [2001]; Irwin v La Guardia Hosp., 23 AD3d 349 [2005]).

The appellants’ remaining contention is without merit. Miller, J.E, Spolzino, Fisher and Dillon, JJ., concur.

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

In a proceeding pursuant to Real Property Tax Law article 7 to review a real property tax assessment, the appeal is from an order of the Supreme Court, Westchester County (Dickerson, J.), entered January 26, 2006, which denied the motion of the Board of Assessment Review and/or the Board of Assessors of the Town of Woodbury to dismiss the proceeding for lack of personal jurisdiction and granted the petitioner’s cross motion to extend its time to serve the petition pursuant to CPLR 306-b.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

The Supreme Court providently exercised its discretion in denying the appellants’ motion to dismiss the proceeding for lack of personal jurisdiction and in granting the petitioner’s cross motion to extend its time to serve the petition pursuant to CPLR 306-b (see Leader v Maroney, Ponzini & Spencer, 97 NY2d 95, 104-106 [2001]; Irwin v La Guardia Hosp., 23 AD3d 349 [2005]).

The appellants’ remaining contention is without merit. Miller, J.E, Spolzino, Fisher and Dillon, JJ., concur.

Commerce Drive Associates, LLC v. Board of Assessment Review, 35 A.D.3d 856, 825 N.Y.S.2d 370 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2006).

Pincite

35 A.D.3d 856 (Commerce Drive Associates, LLC v. Board of Assessment Review) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related