DHI Management Agency v. City of Yonkers

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

DHI Management Agency v. City of Yonkers

67 A.D.2d 913, 413 N.Y.S.2d 39, 1979 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 10683

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

DecidedFebruary 5, 1979

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 67 A.D.2d 913 (DHI Management Agency v. City of Yonkers) 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

DHI Management Agency v. City of Yonkers, 67 A.D.2d 913, 413 N.Y.S.2d 39, 1979 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 10683 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1979).

Pincite

Opinion

— In a proceeding pursuant to article 7 of the Real Property Tax Law, petitioners appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Westchester County, dated May 23, 1977, which treated respondents’ motion to dismiss the petition as one for summary judgment and granted the motion. Order reversed, on the law, with $50 costs and disbursements, and motion denied. Questions are raised in the affidavits as to whether petitioners complied with subdivision 1 of section 512 of the Real Property Tax Law, whether respondents waived the possible lack of compliance, and whether petitioners were affirmatively led into believing they had complied with all prerequisites to challenging the tax assessments in issue. It was therefore error to grant respondents summary judgment (see Matter of Henderson v Silco, 36 AD2d 439; Matter of Romas v Huifcut, 39 Mise 2d 872). Suozzi, J. P., O’Connor, Gulotta and Cohalan, 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, petitioners appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Westchester County, dated May 23, 1977, which treated respondents’ motion to dismiss the petition as one for summary judgment and granted the motion. Order reversed, on the law, with $50 costs and disbursements, and motion denied. Questions are raised in the affidavits as to whether petitioners complied with subdivision 1 of section 512 of the Real Property Tax Law, whether respondents waived the possible lack of compliance, and whether petitioners were affirmatively led into believing they had complied with all prerequisites to challenging the tax assessments in issue. It was therefore error to grant respondents summary judgment (see Matter of Henderson v Silco, 36 AD2d 439; Matter of Romas v Huifcut, 39 Mise 2d 872). Suozzi, J. P., O’Connor, Gulotta and Cohalan, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

67 A.D.2d 913, 413 N.Y.S.2d 39, 1979 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 10683, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/dhi-management-agency-v-city-of-yonkers-nyappdiv-1979.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack