Lovett v. Assessor of Islip

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Lovett v. Assessor of Islip

298 A.D.2d 521, 748 N.Y.S.2d 517, 2002 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 9988

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

DecidedOctober 21, 2002

StatusPublished

Cited by3 cases

This text of 298 A.D.2d 521 (Lovett v. Assessor of Islip) 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

Lovett v. Assessor of Islip, 298 A.D.2d 521, 748 N.Y.S.2d 517, 2002 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 9988 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2002).

Pincite

Opinion

In a proceeding pursuant to RPTL article 7 to review the property tax assessment for the tax year 1995/1996 as to certain real property, the petitioner appeals from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Suffolk County (Prudenti, J.), entered March 14, 2001, which denied the petition and dismissed the proceeding.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed, with costs.

It is well settled that “the purchase price set in the course of an arm’s length transaction of recent vintage, if not explained away as abnormal in any fashion, is evidence of the ‘highest rank’ to determine the true value of the property at that time” (Plaza Hotel Assoc. v Wellington Assoc., 37 NY2d 273, 277). The Supreme Court correctly determined that the 1994 sale price of the subject property was the best evidence of its value (cf. Matter of FMC Corp. v Unmack, 92 NY2d 179, 189).

The petitioner’s remaining contentions are without merit. Florio, J.P., Friedmann, Adams and Crane, JJ., concur.

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

In a proceeding pursuant to RPTL article 7 to review the property tax assessment for the tax year 1995/1996 as to certain real property, the petitioner appeals from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Suffolk County (Prudenti, J.), entered March 14, 2001, which denied the petition and dismissed the proceeding.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed, with costs.

It is well settled that “the purchase price set in the course of an arm’s length transaction of recent vintage, if not explained away as abnormal in any fashion, is evidence of the ‘highest rank’ to determine the true value of the property at that time” (Plaza Hotel Assoc. v Wellington Assoc., 37 NY2d 273, 277). The Supreme Court correctly determined that the 1994 sale price of the subject property was the best evidence of its value (cf. Matter of FMC Corp. v Unmack, 92 NY2d 179, 189).

The petitioner’s remaining contentions are without merit. Florio, J.P., Friedmann, Adams and Crane, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

298 A.D.2d 521, 748 N.Y.S.2d 517, 2002 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 9988, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/lovett-v-assessor-of-islip-nyappdiv-2002.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack