Long Island Lighting Co. v. Assessor of Huntington

251 A.D.2d 331, 674 N.Y.S.2d 65, 1998 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 6303
CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York
DecidedJune 1, 1998
StatusPublished
Cited by3 cases

This text of 251 A.D.2d 331 (Long Island Lighting Co. v. Assessor of Huntington) 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
Long Island Lighting Co. v. Assessor of Huntington, 251 A.D.2d 331, 674 N.Y.S.2d 65, 1998 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 6303 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1998).

Opinion

—In a proceeding pursuant to RPTL article 7 to review the assessment of the petitioner’s real property for the 1996/1997 tax year, Northport-East Northport Union Free School District No. 4 appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Suffolk County (Werner, J.), dated May 14, 1997, which denied its motion for leave to intervene.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs to the petitioner-respondent.

In the instant tax certiorari proceeding, the Supreme Court correctly denied the motion of Northport-East Northport Union Free School District No. 4 (hereinafter the School District) for leave to intervene as a party respondent pursuant to CPLR 1012 (a) (2) (see, Vantage Petroleum v Board of Assessment Review, 91 AD2d 1037, affd 61 NY2d 695). Contrary to the School District’s contention, it will not be bound by any judgment determining this proceeding as a result of the enactment of RPTL 727 (L 1995, ch 693, as amended). RPTL 727 does not affect section 3 of the Suffolk County Tax Act (L 1980, ch 837, as amended) which relieves the School District from liability for the tax refund in question. Moreover, it was a provident exercise of discretion to deny the School District’s motion for leave to intervene pursuant to CPLR 1013 inasmuch as the School District does not have a real and substantial interest in the outcome of the proceeding (see, Perl v Aspromonte Realty Corp., 143 AD2d 824; Guma v Guma, 132 AD2d 645; Plantech Hous. v Conlan, 74 AD2d 920). Bracken, J. P., Copertino, Santucci, Florio and McGinity, JJ., concur.

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

Related

MTR OF STEEL LOS III v. Board
889 N.E.2d 453 (New York Court of Appeals, 2008)
Romonoff Restaurant & Cabaret, Inc. v. World Wide Asset Management Corp.
273 A.D.2d 292 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2000)
Long Island Lighting Co. v. Assessor of Brookhaven
251 A.D.2d 332 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1998)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
251 A.D.2d 331, 674 N.Y.S.2d 65, 1998 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 6303, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/long-island-lighting-co-v-assessor-of-huntington-nyappdiv-1998.