Singer Co. v. Tax Assessor

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Singer Co. v. Tax Assessor

56 A.D.2d 655, 391 N.Y.S.2d 902, 1977 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 10787

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

DecidedFebruary 28, 1977

StatusPublished

Cited by6 cases

This text of 56 A.D.2d 655 (Singer Co. v. Tax Assessor) 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

Singer Co. v. Tax Assessor, 56 A.D.2d 655, 391 N.Y.S.2d 902, 1977 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 10787 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1977).

Pincite

Opinion

In proceedings pursuant to the Real Property Tax Law to review assessments imposed by respondents upon petitioner’s property, the appeals are from four orders (one in each proceeding) of the Supreme Court, Westchester County, all entered May 10, 1976, each of which denied a motion by petitioner for leave to serve an amended pleading. Orders affirmed, with one bill of $50 costs and disbursements, on the opinion of Mr. Justice Slifkin at Special Term (Matter of Singer Co. v Tax Assessor of Vil. of Pleasantville, 86 Misc 2d 631). Petitioner resorts to Matter of Halpern v Rollo (54 AD2d 733) to sustain its argument that the instant application does not fail for want of jurisdiction. While some of the language of that decision might appear to support its position and to confirm the determination enunciated by some courts at nisi prius, Halpern is distinguishable on its facts. There, from a reading of the records and briefs, it is manifest that this court merely allowed the correction of an arithmetical or scrivener’s error as to the equalization rate (see, also, Matter of Lawrence Investing Co. v Board of Review of Dept. of Assessment of Town of Eastchester, 44 AD2d 677). By contrast, here petitioner would have this court go further and permit the correction of an error in judgment. This we cannot do (see Matter of J. C. P. Leasing Co. v Browne, 45 AD2d 129, mot for Iv to app den 35 NY2d 643). Hopkins, Acting P. J., Martuscello, Latham and Damiani, JJ., concur.

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

In proceedings pursuant to the Real Property Tax Law to review assessments imposed by respondents upon petitioner’s property, the appeals are from four orders (one in each proceeding) of the Supreme Court, Westchester County, all entered May 10, 1976, each of which denied a motion by petitioner for leave to serve an amended pleading. Orders affirmed, with one bill of $50 costs and disbursements, on the opinion of Mr. Justice Slifkin at Special Term (Matter of Singer Co. v Tax Assessor of Vil. of Pleasantville, 86 Misc 2d 631). Petitioner resorts to Matter of Halpern v Rollo (54 AD2d 733) to sustain its argument that the instant application does not fail for want of jurisdiction. While some of the language of that decision might appear to support its position and to confirm the determination enunciated by some courts at nisi prius, Halpern is distinguishable on its facts. There, from a reading of the records and briefs, it is manifest that this court merely allowed the correction of an arithmetical or scrivener’s error as to the equalization rate (see, also, Matter of Lawrence Investing Co. v Board of Review of Dept. of Assessment of Town of Eastchester, 44 AD2d 677). By contrast, here petitioner would have this court go further and permit the correction of an error in judgment. This we cannot do (see Matter of J. C. P. Leasing Co. v Browne, 45 AD2d 129, mot for Iv to app den 35 NY2d 643). Hopkins, Acting P. J., Martuscello, Latham and Damiani, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

56 A.D.2d 655, 391 N.Y.S.2d 902, 1977 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 10787, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/singer-co-v-tax-assessor-nyappdiv-1977.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack