Pennington v. Board of Assessors of Alexandria Bay

34 Misc. 2d 336, 227 N.Y.S.2d 964, 1962 N.Y. Misc. LEXIS 3322
CourtNew York Supreme Court
DecidedMay 12, 1962
StatusPublished
Cited by2 cases

This text of 34 Misc. 2d 336 (Pennington v. Board of Assessors of Alexandria Bay) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering New York Supreme Court primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Pennington v. Board of Assessors of Alexandria Bay, 34 Misc. 2d 336, 227 N.Y.S.2d 964, 1962 N.Y. Misc. LEXIS 3322 (N.Y. Super. Ct. 1962).

Opinion

J. Robert Lynch, J.

This is a motion to dismiss a petition for judicial review of an assessment under article 7 of the Real [337]*337Property Tax Law on the ground that the petition and notice were served by mail rather than personally.

Judicial review of an assessment is a proceeding (Real Property Tax Law, § 700). The same statutes and rules apply to the service of papers commencing a proceeding as apply to the personal service of a summons unless special provision is otherwise made (Rules Civ. Prac., rule 21).

We find no special provision regulating the manner of service in article 7 of the Real Property Tax Law. Section 704 thereof provides simply that the petition shall be served upon the officers designated in section 708. This latter section provides that service shall be made by delivering ” the petition to certain specified officers. To construe this word ‘1 delivering ’ ’ to permit service by mail, as the petitioner would have us do, would be to strain its import beyond legislative intention.

The same question has been decided by Matter of Greystone Holding Corp. v. Lennox (197 Misc. 463, 464, affd. 279 App. Div. 595) in its holding that “ There is no provision for service by mail ”. We cannot agree with petitioner that this statement is dicta. Had service by mail been permitted in the Greystone case, an opposite result would have been reached; the Statute of Limitations would not have run due to the extension of time granted mailed papers by section 164 of the Civil Practice Act. The motion to dismiss the petition is granted.

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

Related

Wyeth Ayerst Pharmaceuticals, Inc. v. Assessor of the Town of Champlain
24 A.D.3d 849 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2005)
Rizika v. Board of Assessors
62 Misc. 2d 774 (New York Supreme Court, 1970)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
34 Misc. 2d 336, 227 N.Y.S.2d 964, 1962 N.Y. Misc. LEXIS 3322, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/pennington-v-board-of-assessors-of-alexandria-bay-nysupct-1962.