In re Gould Realty Co.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

In re Gould Realty Co.

259 A.D. 1085, 21 N.Y.S.2d 1, 1940 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 8098

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

DecidedJuly 2, 1940

StatusPublished

This text of 259 A.D. 1085 (In re Gould Realty Co.) 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

In re Gould Realty Co., 259 A.D. 1085, 21 N.Y.S.2d 1, 1940 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 8098 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1940).

Pincite

Opinion

Order denying appellants’ application, under article 78, Civil Practice Act, for an order prohibiting the respondent deputy county treasurer of Suffolk county from proceeding upon the application of respondent Sweezy to revoke the cancellations of tax sales heretofore made of appellants’ real property affirmed, with ten dollars costs and disbursements. No opinion. Hagarty, Johnston and Close, JJ., concur; Lazansky, P. J., and Adel, J., dissent and vote to reverse the order and to grant petitioners’ application, with the following memorandum: The county board of supervisors compromised certain tax disputes relating to appellants’ real property, which is situated in the town of Huntington. The appellants gave substantial considerations for the compromise. The board had power to make the settlement. (Suffolk County Tax Act [Laws of 1920, chap. 311], § 66, as added by Laws of 1929, chap. 152; Id. § 30, as amd. by Laws of 1931, chap. 187.) Its determination has not been overruled, and must be held to conclude respondent deputy county treasurer from proceeding under section 141 of the Tax Law. The answers of the respondents do not raise any triable issue upon the allegations of the petition, which are substantially established by matters of public record and the affidavit submitted on behalf of appellants.

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

Order denying appellants’ application, under article 78, Civil Practice Act, for an order prohibiting the respondent deputy county treasurer of Suffolk county from proceeding upon the application of respondent Sweezy to revoke the cancellations of tax sales heretofore made of appellants’ real property affirmed, with ten dollars costs and disbursements. No opinion. Hagarty, Johnston and Close, JJ., concur; Lazansky, P. J., and Adel, J., dissent and vote to reverse the order and to grant petitioners’ application, with the following memorandum: The county board of supervisors compromised certain tax disputes relating to appellants’ real property, which is situated in the town of Huntington. The appellants gave substantial considerations for the compromise. The board had power to make the settlement. (Suffolk County Tax Act [Laws of 1920, chap. 311], § 66, as added by Laws of 1929, chap. 152; Id. § 30, as amd. by Laws of 1931, chap. 187.) Its determination has not been overruled, and must be held to conclude respondent deputy county treasurer from proceeding under section 141 of the Tax Law. The answers of the respondents do not raise any triable issue upon the allegations of the petition, which are substantially established by matters of public record and the affidavit submitted on behalf of appellants.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

259 A.D. 1085, 21 N.Y.S.2d 1, 1940 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 8098, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/in-re-gould-realty-co-nyappdiv-1940.