Niagara County Water District v. Board of Assessors

31 A.D.2d 1004, 299 N.Y.S.2d 239, 1969 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4344
CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York
DecidedMarch 27, 1969
StatusPublished
Cited by7 cases

This text of 31 A.D.2d 1004 (Niagara County Water District v. Board of Assessors) 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
Niagara County Water District v. Board of Assessors, 31 A.D.2d 1004, 299 N.Y.S.2d 239, 1969 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4344 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1969).

Opinion

Order unanimously reversed, without costs, and matter remitted to Supreme Court, Niagara County, for further proceedings in accordance with the following Memorandum: The Niagara 'County Water District is the owner of 4,250 feet of 10-inch water line which is assessed on the assessment rolls of the City of Lockport. This proceeding raises the question of the taxability of that water line. In Matter of Onondaga Coimty Water Hist. v. Board of Assessors (55 Misc 2d 481, affd. 30 A D 2d 643, mot. for lv. to app. den. 22 N Y 2d 645) it was held that an exemption from taxation pursuant to section 272 of the County Law, extended [1005]*1005to those improvements made by a County Water District when the improvements are located within the boundaries of the district. The petition and answer present an undetermined issue whether the petitioner’s water line is located within the boundaries of the Water District. We must, therefore, remit the matter for determination of this critical issue. If the court should find that the water line is located within the district boundaries, then it should also determine whether it is an improvement and therefore exempt from taxation under section 272 of the County Law. In view of the undecided issue concerning location, we did not reach the question whether the water line is an improvement. Finally, matters set out in the briefs and urged upon oral argument but not properly presented by the record may not he considered by this court. (Hayes v. Haj, 246 App. Div. 568.) (Appeal from order of Niagara Special Term, canceling assessment of taxes.) Present—'Del Vecehio, J. P., Marsh, Gabrielli, Bastow and Henry, JJ.

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

Related

RAWLINS, ANGELA v. ST. JOSEPH'S HOSPITAL HEALTH CENTER
Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2013
Rawlins v. St. Joseph's Hospital Health Center
108 A.D.3d 1191 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2013)
People v. Ores
108 A.D.2d 931 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1985)
Holm v. C.M.P. Sheet Metal, Inc.
89 A.D.2d 229 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1982)
In re the Accounting of Read
62 A.D.2d 1155 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1978)
Finn v. Crystal Beach Transit Co.
55 A.D.2d 1001 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1977)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
31 A.D.2d 1004, 299 N.Y.S.2d 239, 1969 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4344, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/niagara-county-water-district-v-board-of-assessors-nyappdiv-1969.