MATTER OF CONSOL. EDISON CO. OF NEW YORK, INC. v. State Bd. of Equalization & Assessment

New York Court of Appeals

MATTER OF CONSOL. EDISON CO. OF NEW YORK, INC. v. State Bd. of Equalization & Assessment

444 N.E.2d 1326, 58 N.Y.2d 710, 458 N.Y.S.2d 907, 1982 N.Y. LEXIS 3922

CourtNew York Court of Appeals

DecidedDecember 2, 1982

StatusPublished

Cited by9 cases

This text of 444 N.E.2d 1326 (MATTER OF CONSOL. EDISON CO. OF NEW YORK, INC. v. State Bd. of Equalization & Assessment) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering New York Court of Appeals primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

MATTER OF CONSOL. EDISON CO. OF NEW YORK, INC. v. State Bd. of Equalization & Assessment, 444 N.E.2d 1326, 58 N.Y.2d 710, 458 N.Y.S.2d 907, 1982 N.Y. LEXIS 3922 (N.Y. 1982).

Pincite

Opinion

OPINION OF THE COURT

Memorandum.

The order of the Appellate Division should be affirmed, with costs, and the certified question answered in the negative.

The only question before us on this appeal is whether the Appellate Division erred in holding that Special Term abused its discretion as a matter of law in allowing the filing by petitioner of a supplemental appraisal, the original appraisal filed by it under 22 NYCRR 839.2 not having included data concerning reproduction cost new less depreciation. It is not claimed that the decision to file the appraisal in that form was not a deliberate one on petitioner’s part, or that any cause for supplementing it existed other than the decision of Special Term, now overruled by the Appellate Division, that the special franchise proper *713 ties, the valuation of which petitioner seeks by this proceeding to have reduced, are specialties to be valued only on the basis of reproduction cost new less depreciation.

Whether the Appellate Division was correct in overruling Special Term as to the method of valuation is not before us on this appeal, nor need we consider whether had the Special Term valuation ruling not been overruled its existence would provide good cause under the Third Department’s rule. The sole predicate for the allowance by Special Term of the filing of a supplemental appraisal having been the valuation ruling and the Appellate Division having held that ruling erroneous,-it necessarily follows that there was not only not good cause for allowing supplemental filing, there was no cause. Without Special Term’s valuation ruling, its authorization of a supplemental appraisal was without basis and, therefore, an abuse of discretion as a matter of law.

Chief Judge Cooke and Judges Jasen, Jones, Wachtler, Fuchsberg and Meyer concur in memorandum; Judge Gabrielli taking no part.

Order affirmed, etc.

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

OPINION OF THE COURT

Memorandum.

The order of the Appellate Division should be affirmed, with costs, and the certified question answered in the negative.

The only question before us on this appeal is whether the Appellate Division erred in holding that Special Term abused its discretion as a matter of law in allowing the filing by petitioner of a supplemental appraisal, the original appraisal filed by it under 22 NYCRR 839.2 not having included data concerning reproduction cost new less depreciation. It is not claimed that the decision to file the appraisal in that form was not a deliberate one on petitioner’s part, or that any cause for supplementing it existed other than the decision of Special Term, now overruled by the Appellate Division, that the special franchise proper *713 ties, the valuation of which petitioner seeks by this proceeding to have reduced, are specialties to be valued only on the basis of reproduction cost new less depreciation.

Whether the Appellate Division was correct in overruling Special Term as to the method of valuation is not before us on this appeal, nor need we consider whether had the Special Term valuation ruling not been overruled its existence would provide good cause under the Third Department’s rule. The sole predicate for the allowance by Special Term of the filing of a supplemental appraisal having been the valuation ruling and the Appellate Division having held that ruling erroneous,-it necessarily follows that there was not only not good cause for allowing supplemental filing, there was no cause. Without Special Term’s valuation ruling, its authorization of a supplemental appraisal was without basis and, therefore, an abuse of discretion as a matter of law.

Chief Judge Cooke and Judges Jasen, Jones, Wachtler, Fuchsberg and Meyer concur in memorandum; Judge Gabrielli taking no part.

Order affirmed, etc.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

444 N.E.2d 1326, 58 N.Y.2d 710, 458 N.Y.S.2d 907, 1982 N.Y. LEXIS 3922, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/matter-of-consol-edison-co-of-new-york-inc-v-state-bd-of-equalization-ny-1982.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack