Shereff-Schopick Realty Co. v. Tax Commission

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Shereff-Schopick Realty Co. v. Tax Commission

88 A.D.2d 937, 450 N.Y.S.2d 871, 1982 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 17287

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

DecidedJune 7, 1982

StatusPublished

This text of 88 A.D.2d 937 (Shereff-Schopick Realty Co. v. Tax Commission) 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

Shereff-Schopick Realty Co. v. Tax Commission, 88 A.D.2d 937, 450 N.Y.S.2d 871, 1982 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 17287 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1982).

Pincite

Opinion

— In a consolidated tax certiorari proceeding, the Tax Commission and Finance Administrator of the City of New York appeal from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Kassoff, J.), dated May 29, 1979, which reduced the assessments for each of the three tax years under review. By order dated March 30,1981 this court remanded the matter to Special Term for the making of new findings in accordance with our memorandum. In the interim, the appeal was held in abeyance (Matter of Shereff-Schopick Realty Co. v Tax Comm, of City ofN. Y., 80 AD2d 920). Our decision directing that the matter be remanded stated, in pertinent part: “Both experts relied upon the cost approach. * * * We are in accord with Special Term’s decision with respect to the nature of the items to be excluded and included in the reproduction cost valuation approach. However, with the exception of the cost of the air structure ($107,000), the decision fails to set forth the dollar amounts of the items to be excluded and included. Further, it does not state the total reproduction cost resulting from the court’s exclusions and inclusions. Although the reproduction costs of some of the these items (e.g., accoustical ceilings) might be ascertained from the appraisal reports of the experts, there remains uncertainty as to the amount of depreciation allowed by the court on such items. Absent such dollar cost findings, we are unable to review the propriety of the reductions ordered by Special Term. Accordingly, a remand for such findings is necessary (see Matter of Elmhurst Towers v Tax Comm, of City ofN. Y., 34 AD2d 570).” Special Term has now rendered further findings. The parties have filed no briefs with respect to those further findings. Judgment affirmed, with costs. Special Term’s postremand findings comply with and are consistent with our directive. We find no basis for disturbing its determination, as supple-[938]*938merited by the postremand findings (see People ex rel. MacCracken v Miller, 291 NY 55, 61-62). Mollen, P. J., Titone, Mangano and O’Connor, JJ., concur.

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

— In a consolidated tax certiorari proceeding, the Tax Commission and Finance Administrator of the City of New York appeal from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Kassoff, J.), dated May 29, 1979, which reduced the assessments for each of the three tax years under review. By order dated March 30,1981 this court remanded the matter to Special Term for the making of new findings in accordance with our memorandum. In the interim, the appeal was held in abeyance (Matter of Shereff-Schopick Realty Co. v Tax Comm, of City ofN. Y., 80 AD2d 920). Our decision directing that the matter be remanded stated, in pertinent part: “Both experts relied upon the cost approach. * * * We are in accord with Special Term’s decision with respect to the nature of the items to be excluded and included in the reproduction cost valuation approach. However, with the exception of the cost of the air structure ($107,000), the decision fails to set forth the dollar amounts of the items to be excluded and included. Further, it does not state the total reproduction cost resulting from the court’s exclusions and inclusions. Although the reproduction costs of some of the these items (e.g., accoustical ceilings) might be ascertained from the appraisal reports of the experts, there remains uncertainty as to the amount of depreciation allowed by the court on such items. Absent such dollar cost findings, we are unable to review the propriety of the reductions ordered by Special Term. Accordingly, a remand for such findings is necessary (see Matter of Elmhurst Towers v Tax Comm, of City ofN. Y., 34 AD2d 570).” Special Term has now rendered further findings. The parties have filed no briefs with respect to those further findings. Judgment affirmed, with costs. Special Term’s postremand findings comply with and are consistent with our directive. We find no basis for disturbing its determination, as supple-[938]*938merited by the postremand findings (see People ex rel. MacCracken v Miller, 291 NY 55, 61-62). Mollen, P. J., Titone, Mangano and O’Connor, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

88 A.D.2d 937, 450 N.Y.S.2d 871, 1982 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 17287, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/shereff-schopick-realty-co-v-tax-commission-nyappdiv-1982.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack