F. W. Woolworth Co. v. Leskow

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

F. W. Woolworth Co. v. Leskow

115 A.D.2d 479, 495 N.Y.S.2d 712, 1985 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 54865

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

DecidedDecember 2, 1985

StatusPublished

This text of 115 A.D.2d 479 (F. W. Woolworth Co. v. Leskow) 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

F. W. Woolworth Co. v. Leskow, 115 A.D.2d 479, 495 N.Y.S.2d 712, 1985 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 54865 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1985).

Pincite

Opinion

In consolidated proceedings to review assessments on petitioner’s property for the tax years 1979/1980, 1981/1982 and 1982/1983, the parties cross-appeal from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Dutchess County (Marbach, J.), dated April 9, 1984, which reduced the total assessments for the years in question.

Judgment reversed, without costs or disbursements, and matter remitted to Special Term for further proceedings in accordance herewith.

Petitioner’s property, a one-story and basement department store building located in the Main Street Mall in Poughkeepsie, New York, was assessed for the three tax years in ques[480]*480tion at $300,000. Both petitioner’s and respondents-appellants’ experts primarily used the income approach to determine value, but they arrived at widely divergent estimates of fair market value. Special Term chose respondents-appellants’ expert’s estimates of value on the ground that he had more local knowledge and experience than did petitioner’s expert, although it found them both to be well-qualified appraisers. However, in deciding to accept respondents-appellants’ expert’s determination of value, Special Term did not explain the choice of one method of capitalization over the other. Accordingly the court failed to comply with Real Property Tax Law § 720 (2). Therefore, we remit the case for a decision in accordance with section 720 (2). O’Connor, J. P., Weinstein, Niehoff and Eiber, JJ., concur.

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

In consolidated proceedings to review assessments on petitioner’s property for the tax years 1979/1980, 1981/1982 and 1982/1983, the parties cross-appeal from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Dutchess County (Marbach, J.), dated April 9, 1984, which reduced the total assessments for the years in question.

Judgment reversed, without costs or disbursements, and matter remitted to Special Term for further proceedings in accordance herewith.

Petitioner’s property, a one-story and basement department store building located in the Main Street Mall in Poughkeepsie, New York, was assessed for the three tax years in ques[480]*480tion at $300,000. Both petitioner’s and respondents-appellants’ experts primarily used the income approach to determine value, but they arrived at widely divergent estimates of fair market value. Special Term chose respondents-appellants’ expert’s estimates of value on the ground that he had more local knowledge and experience than did petitioner’s expert, although it found them both to be well-qualified appraisers. However, in deciding to accept respondents-appellants’ expert’s determination of value, Special Term did not explain the choice of one method of capitalization over the other. Accordingly the court failed to comply with Real Property Tax Law § 720 (2). Therefore, we remit the case for a decision in accordance with section 720 (2). O’Connor, J. P., Weinstein, Niehoff and Eiber, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

115 A.D.2d 479, 495 N.Y.S.2d 712, 1985 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 54865, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/f-w-woolworth-co-v-leskow-nyappdiv-1985.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack