Crossman Cadillac, Inc. v. Board of Assessors

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Crossman Cadillac, Inc. v. Board of Assessors

54 A.D.2d 762, 387 N.Y.S.2d 815, 1976 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 14426

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

DecidedOctober 25, 1976

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 54 A.D.2d 762 (Crossman Cadillac, Inc. 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

Crossman Cadillac, Inc. v. Board of Assessors, 54 A.D.2d 762, 387 N.Y.S.2d 815, 1976 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 14426 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1976).

Pincite

Opinion

In a proceeding pursuant to article 7 of the Real Property Tax Law, petitioner appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Nassau County, entered April 27, 1976, which denied its motion for summary judgment. Order affirmed, without costs or disbursements. The narrow and only issue in this proceeding is whether petitioner has incorporated, as a part of its real estate, the communications system mentioned and described in its petition (see Matter of Crystal v City of Syracuse, Dept, of Assessment, 47 AD2d 29, affd 38 NY2d 883). The trial of this proceeding should be limited to that issue (see CPLR 3212, subd [g]). Gulotta, P. J., Hopkins, Latham, Shapiro and Hawkins, JJ., concur.

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

In a proceeding pursuant to article 7 of the Real Property Tax Law, petitioner appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Nassau County, entered April 27, 1976, which denied its motion for summary judgment. Order affirmed, without costs or disbursements. The narrow and only issue in this proceeding is whether petitioner has incorporated, as a part of its real estate, the communications system mentioned and described in its petition (see Matter of Crystal v City of Syracuse, Dept, of Assessment, 47 AD2d 29, affd 38 NY2d 883). The trial of this proceeding should be limited to that issue (see CPLR 3212, subd [g]). Gulotta, P. J., Hopkins, Latham, Shapiro and Hawkins, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

54 A.D.2d 762, 387 N.Y.S.2d 815, 1976 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 14426, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/crossman-cadillac-inc-v-board-of-assessors-nyappdiv-1976.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack