Unifirst Corp. v. Town of Hamburg

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Unifirst Corp. v. Town of Hamburg

219 A.D.2d 822, 631 N.Y.S.2d 973, 1995 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 10857

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

DecidedSeptember 29, 1995

StatusPublished

This text of 219 A.D.2d 822 (Unifirst Corp. v. Town of Hamburg) 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

Unifirst Corp. v. Town of Hamburg, 219 A.D.2d 822, 631 N.Y.S.2d 973, 1995 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 10857 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1995).

Pincite

Opinion

Judgment unanimously affirmed without costs. Memorandum: Supreme Court properly dismissed petitioner’s CPLR article 78 proceeding because respondents did not act arbitrarily or capriciously in basing petitioner’s initial sewage treatment charges upon information supplied by petitioner in its application for a sewer permit. Actual flow figures are now available and will form the basis to compute subsequent charges for sewage treatment. Petitioner’s argument that the sewage treatment charge is unlawful is raised for the first time on appeal [823]*823and therefore is not properly before this Court for review (see, Alberti v Eastman Kodak Co., 204 AD2d 1022, 1023). Furthermore, that argument is without merit. Where there is no actual data to compute the charges for the preceding year, the taxing authorities may determine the charges based upon "any equitable basis” (County Law § 266 [a]). (Appeal from Judgment of Supreme Court, Erie County, Joslin, J. — CPLR art 78.) Present — Pine, J. P., Lawton, Callahan, Balio and Davis, JJ.

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

Judgment unanimously affirmed without costs. Memorandum: Supreme Court properly dismissed petitioner’s CPLR article 78 proceeding because respondents did not act arbitrarily or capriciously in basing petitioner’s initial sewage treatment charges upon information supplied by petitioner in its application for a sewer permit. Actual flow figures are now available and will form the basis to compute subsequent charges for sewage treatment. Petitioner’s argument that the sewage treatment charge is unlawful is raised for the first time on appeal [823]*823and therefore is not properly before this Court for review (see, Alberti v Eastman Kodak Co., 204 AD2d 1022, 1023). Furthermore, that argument is without merit. Where there is no actual data to compute the charges for the preceding year, the taxing authorities may determine the charges based upon "any equitable basis” (County Law § 266 [a]). (Appeal from Judgment of Supreme Court, Erie County, Joslin, J. — CPLR art 78.) Present — Pine, J. P., Lawton, Callahan, Balio and Davis, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

219 A.D.2d 822, 631 N.Y.S.2d 973, 1995 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 10857, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/unifirst-corp-v-town-of-hamburg-nyappdiv-1995.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack