Trinkaus v. Service

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Trinkaus v. Service

88 A.D.2d 788, 451 N.Y.S.2d 536, 1982 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 17051

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

DecidedMay 21, 1982

StatusPublished

This text of 88 A.D.2d 788 (Trinkaus v. Service) 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

Trinkaus v. Service, 88 A.D.2d 788, 451 N.Y.S.2d 536, 1982 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 17051 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1982).

Pincite

Opinion

— Order unanimously affirmed, without costs. Memorandum: Petitioners and respondent assessor of the Town of Whitestown entered into a stipulation upon which an order was entered directing the officials of the Town of Whitestown and of the County of Oneida having custody of the assessment rolls to correct the assessments for petitioners’ property on said rolls for the years 1978 and 1979. [789]*789By terms of the order, the Oriskany School District was directed to make refunds to petitioners of any excess taxes collected during the two tax years. The school district was not named as a party to the tax review proceeding and, upon receipt of the order directing it to make refunds, did not move to intervene or to vacate the order directing correction of the assessments. Instead, it filed a notice of appeal. There is nothing in the record before us indicating that the order directing correction of the assessments is not in all respects a final order which must be given binding effect under section 726 (subd 1, par [c]) of the Real Property Tax Law. (Appeal from order of Supreme Court, Oneida County, Tenney, J. — reduce tax assessment.) Present — Hancock, Jr., J. P., Callahan, Denman, Boomer and Schnepp, JJ.

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

— Order unanimously affirmed, without costs. Memorandum: Petitioners and respondent assessor of the Town of Whitestown entered into a stipulation upon which an order was entered directing the officials of the Town of Whitestown and of the County of Oneida having custody of the assessment rolls to correct the assessments for petitioners’ property on said rolls for the years 1978 and 1979. [789]*789By terms of the order, the Oriskany School District was directed to make refunds to petitioners of any excess taxes collected during the two tax years. The school district was not named as a party to the tax review proceeding and, upon receipt of the order directing it to make refunds, did not move to intervene or to vacate the order directing correction of the assessments. Instead, it filed a notice of appeal. There is nothing in the record before us indicating that the order directing correction of the assessments is not in all respects a final order which must be given binding effect under section 726 (subd 1, par [c]) of the Real Property Tax Law. (Appeal from order of Supreme Court, Oneida County, Tenney, J. — reduce tax assessment.) Present — Hancock, Jr., J. P., Callahan, Denman, Boomer and Schnepp, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

88 A.D.2d 788, 451 N.Y.S.2d 536, 1982 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 17051, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/trinkaus-v-service-nyappdiv-1982.