Home/New York Court of Appeals/MATTER OF KERMANI v. Town Bd. of Town of Guilderland

MATTER OF KERMANI v. Town Bd. of Town of Guilderland

356 N.E.2d 473, 40 N.Y.2d 854, 387 N.Y.S.2d 1001, 1976 N.Y. LEXIS 3020
CourtNew York Court of Appeals
DecidedOctober 14, 1976
StatusPublished
Cited by8 cases

This text of 356 N.E.2d 473 (MATTER OF KERMANI v. Town Bd. of Town of Guilderland) 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 KERMANI v. Town Bd. of Town of Guilderland, 356 N.E.2d 473, 40 N.Y.2d 854, 387 N.Y.S.2d 1001, 1976 N.Y. LEXIS 3020 (N.Y. 1976).

Opinion

Memorandum. The order of the Appellate Division should be reversed and the petition dismissed. We agree with Mr. Justice Edward S. Conway at Special Term that petitioner has not met his burden of demonstrating infirmity in the benefit formula for levying the sewer tax assessments, either facially or as applied. We would only add that petitioner’s assault on the town’s assessment of sewer charges against property owned by him is predicated on cited incongruities between the ratio of apportioned sewer charge to assessed valuation with respect to identified commercial properties and the same ratio with respect to his own undeveloped residential property. The benefits conferred by sewer installation may reasonably be wholly unrelated to assessed valuation; thus, the disparity on which petitioner would rely, without more, proves nothing. On the evidence submitted here, petitioner has not sustained his burden of demonstrating that the town has failed to meet the statutory mandate that the financial burden of sewer system installation shall be apportioned among the parcels benefited "in just proportion to the amount of benefit which the improvement shall confer upon the same”. (Town Law, § 202, subd 2.)

Chief Judge Breitel and Judges Jasen, Gabrielli, Jones, Wachtler, Fuchsberg and Cooke concur.

Order reversed, with costs, and petition dismissed in a memorandum.

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

Related

Carriero v. Town Board
72 A.D.3d 1479 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2010)
AG-II Acquisition Corp. v. Board of Assessors
21 Misc. 3d 543 (New York Supreme Court, 2008)
New York State Dormitory Authority v. Board of Trustees of the Hyde Park Fire and Water District
206 A.D.2d 483 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1994)
Horowitz v. Board of Assessment Review of Monroe
128 A.D.2d 875 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1987)
Skinner v. Village of Sylvan Beach
113 A.D.2d 1000 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1985)
Pikas v. Town of Grand Island
106 A.D.2d 887 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1984)
Press v. County of Monroe
72 A.D.2d 915 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1979)
Saggolf Corp. v. Town Board of Bolton
63 A.D.2d 428 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1978)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
356 N.E.2d 473, 40 N.Y.2d 854, 387 N.Y.S.2d 1001, 1976 N.Y. LEXIS 3020, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/matter-of-kermani-v-town-bd-of-town-of-guilderland-ny-1976.