Onondaga Savings Bank v. Srogi

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Onondaga Savings Bank v. Srogi

96 A.D.2d 1140, 467 N.Y.S.2d 441, 1983 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 19820

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

DecidedSeptember 23, 1983

StatusPublished

This text of 96 A.D.2d 1140 (Onondaga Savings Bank v. Srogi) 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

Onondaga Savings Bank v. Srogi, 96 A.D.2d 1140, 467 N.Y.S.2d 441, 1983 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 19820 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1983).

Pincite

Opinion

— Order and judgment unanimously affirmed, with costs. Memorandum: The record supports the determination of the trial court in its reduction of the assessment (see Matter of Pepsi-Cola Co. v Tax Comm., 19 AD2d 56, 61). Whether the actual rent charged by the bank to itself for its own occupancy is a reliable index of full value and economic rent was a question of fact for the trial court to resolve (see Matter of Henry Distr. Corp. v Srogi, 91 AD2d 818; see, also, Matter of Merrick Holding Corp. v Board of Assessors, 45 NY2d 538). The capitalization rates adopted by the trial court are supported by evidence and within the range of 'testimony (see Matter of Schoeneck v City of Syracuse, 93 AD2d 988). The city’s argument that the rates used by the trial court cannot be reconciled with our decision in Matter of Marine Midland Props. Corp. v Srogi (91 AD2d 824) is without merit. Obviously, “circumstances of particular cases may result in the application of varying capitalization rates” (Matter of Commercial Structures v City of Syracuse, 91 AD2d 1197, 1198). (Appeal from order and judgment of Supreme Court, Onondaga County, Murphy, J. — Real Property Tax Law, art 7.) Present — Dillon, P.J., Boomer, Green, Moule and Schnepp, JJ.

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

— Order and judgment unanimously affirmed, with costs. Memorandum: The record supports the determination of the trial court in its reduction of the assessment (see Matter of Pepsi-Cola Co. v Tax Comm., 19 AD2d 56, 61). Whether the actual rent charged by the bank to itself for its own occupancy is a reliable index of full value and economic rent was a question of fact for the trial court to resolve (see Matter of Henry Distr. Corp. v Srogi, 91 AD2d 818; see, also, Matter of Merrick Holding Corp. v Board of Assessors, 45 NY2d 538). The capitalization rates adopted by the trial court are supported by evidence and within the range of 'testimony (see Matter of Schoeneck v City of Syracuse, 93 AD2d 988). The city’s argument that the rates used by the trial court cannot be reconciled with our decision in Matter of Marine Midland Props. Corp. v Srogi (91 AD2d 824) is without merit. Obviously, “circumstances of particular cases may result in the application of varying capitalization rates” (Matter of Commercial Structures v City of Syracuse, 91 AD2d 1197, 1198). (Appeal from order and judgment of Supreme Court, Onondaga County, Murphy, J. — Real Property Tax Law, art 7.) Present — Dillon, P.J., Boomer, Green, Moule and Schnepp, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

96 A.D.2d 1140, 467 N.Y.S.2d 441, 1983 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 19820, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/onondaga-savings-bank-v-srogi-nyappdiv-1983.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack