MATTER OF GRIDLEY BLDG., INC. v. Gingold

New York Court of Appeals

MATTER OF GRIDLEY BLDG., INC. v. Gingold

183 N.E.2d 909, 11 N.Y.2d 1029, 230 N.Y.S.2d 27, 1962 N.Y. LEXIS 1090

CourtNew York Court of Appeals

DecidedJune 12, 1962

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 183 N.E.2d 909 (MATTER OF GRIDLEY BLDG., INC. v. Gingold) 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 GRIDLEY BLDG., INC. v. Gingold, 183 N.E.2d 909, 11 N.Y.2d 1029, 230 N.Y.S.2d 27, 1962 N.Y. LEXIS 1090 (N.Y. 1962).

Pincite

Opinion

Per Curiam.

The order appealed from should be affirmed, without costs. Subdivision 1 of section 716 of the Beal Property Tax Law authorizes but one demand as of right for an admission of the percentage of full value at which real property is assessed on the tax rolls of the municipality, which is all that has been determined by the order under review. The taxpayer could not serve a subsequent demand without prior application addressed to the discretion of Special Term for leave to do so, as in the case of a motion for permission to serve an amended or supplemental pleading after the time to serve it as of right has expired (Austin v. Saccacio, 1 AD 2d 1028; Orlik v. National Carbon Co., 176 App. Div. 600). The order appealed from does not preclude the taxpayer from making such an application at Special Term on good cause shown.

Chief Judge Desmond and Judges Dye, Fuld, Fboessel, Van Voobhis, Bubble and Fosteb concur.

Order affirmed.

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

Per Curiam.

The order appealed from should be affirmed, without costs. Subdivision 1 of section 716 of the Beal Property Tax Law authorizes but one demand as of right for an admission of the percentage of full value at which real property is assessed on the tax rolls of the municipality, which is all that has been determined by the order under review. The taxpayer could not serve a subsequent demand without prior application addressed to the discretion of Special Term for leave to do so, as in the case of a motion for permission to serve an amended or supplemental pleading after the time to serve it as of right has expired (Austin v. Saccacio, 1 AD 2d 1028; Orlik v. National Carbon Co., 176 App. Div. 600). The order appealed from does not preclude the taxpayer from making such an application at Special Term on good cause shown.

Chief Judge Desmond and Judges Dye, Fuld, Fboessel, Van Voobhis, Bubble and Fosteb concur.

Order affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

183 N.E.2d 909, 11 N.Y.2d 1029, 230 N.Y.S.2d 27, 1962 N.Y. LEXIS 1090, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/matter-of-gridley-bldg-inc-v-gingold-ny-1962.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack