Halpern v. McEvoy

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Halpern v. McEvoy

46 A.D.2d 786, 360 N.Y.S.2d 707, 1974 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3657

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

DecidedNovember 12, 1974

StatusPublished

This text of 46 A.D.2d 786 (Halpern v. McEvoy) 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

Halpern v. McEvoy, 46 A.D.2d 786, 360 N.Y.S.2d 707, 1974 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3657 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1974).

Pincite

Opinion

In consolidated proceedings to review tax assessments upon certain real property, the appeal is from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Westchester County, dated February 14, 1974, which inter alia granted petitioners’ motion to confirm a referee’s report reducing the assessments. Judgment modified, on the law, by istriking therefrom all the decretal paragraphs except the second and last, which awarded a fee to the referee and costs to petitioners, and by adding thereto a provision denying the motion to confirm the referee’s report. As so modified, judgment affirmed, without costs, and the referee is directed to make a new report and file it in the office of the County Clerk of Westchester County, with further proceedings thereon to be had lat Special Term. The referee could not properly have arrived at the identical conclusion as petitioners’ appraiser on the value of the improvement using the same capitalization rate and different land values (appellants’ sixth point on this appeal). This necessitates a new report (with new findings) by the referee, ¡setting forth inter alia the rate of capitalization utilized by him and explaining the method by which he arrived at his valuations. Hopkins, Acting P. J., \ Martuscello, Latham, Shapiro and Christ, JJ., concur.

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

In consolidated proceedings to review tax assessments upon certain real property, the appeal is from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Westchester County, dated February 14, 1974, which inter alia granted petitioners’ motion to confirm a referee’s report reducing the assessments. Judgment modified, on the law, by istriking therefrom all the decretal paragraphs except the second and last, which awarded a fee to the referee and costs to petitioners, and by adding thereto a provision denying the motion to confirm the referee’s report. As so modified, judgment affirmed, without costs, and the referee is directed to make a new report and file it in the office of the County Clerk of Westchester County, with further proceedings thereon to be had lat Special Term. The referee could not properly have arrived at the identical conclusion as petitioners’ appraiser on the value of the improvement using the same capitalization rate and different land values (appellants’ sixth point on this appeal). This necessitates a new report (with new findings) by the referee, ¡setting forth inter alia the rate of capitalization utilized by him and explaining the method by which he arrived at his valuations. Hopkins, Acting P. J., \ Martuscello, Latham, Shapiro and Christ, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

46 A.D.2d 786, 360 N.Y.S.2d 707, 1974 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3657, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/halpern-v-mcevoy-nyappdiv-1974.