Mikeadam Realty Corp. v. Davis

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Mikeadam Realty Corp. v. Davis

123 A.D.2d 631, 506 N.Y.S.2d 899, 1986 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 60777

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

DecidedOctober 6, 1986

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 123 A.D.2d 631 (Mikeadam Realty Corp. v. Davis) 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

Mikeadam Realty Corp. v. Davis, 123 A.D.2d 631, 506 N.Y.S.2d 899, 1986 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 60777 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1986).

Pincite

Opinion

In a proceeding pursuant to Real Property Tax Law article 7 to review tax assessments on the petitioner’s real property for the assessment year 1983, the appeal is from an order and judgment (one paper) of the Supreme Court, Westchester County (Sullivan, J.), dated February 8, 1985, which reduced the assessments.

Order and judgment affirmed, without costs or disbursements.

As the trier of fact, the trial court was entitled to utilize its own methods in computing the value of the subject property within the framework of the evidence adduced at the trial (see, Matter of City of New York [Fourth Ave.], 255 NY 25, 30, rearg denied 255 NY 602). We find no basis in the record for disturbing the trial court’s decision, usage and application of Matter of Mount Hous. Co. v Rubino (90 AD2d 780). Bracken, J. P., Brown, Weinstein and Rubin, JJ., concur.

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

In a proceeding pursuant to Real Property Tax Law article 7 to review tax assessments on the petitioner’s real property for the assessment year 1983, the appeal is from an order and judgment (one paper) of the Supreme Court, Westchester County (Sullivan, J.), dated February 8, 1985, which reduced the assessments.

Order and judgment affirmed, without costs or disbursements.

As the trier of fact, the trial court was entitled to utilize its own methods in computing the value of the subject property within the framework of the evidence adduced at the trial (see, Matter of City of New York [Fourth Ave.], 255 NY 25, 30, rearg denied 255 NY 602). We find no basis in the record for disturbing the trial court’s decision, usage and application of Matter of Mount Hous. Co. v Rubino (90 AD2d 780). Bracken, J. P., Brown, Weinstein and Rubin, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

123 A.D.2d 631, 506 N.Y.S.2d 899, 1986 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 60777, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/mikeadam-realty-corp-v-davis-nyappdiv-1986.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack