Younan v. City of Rome Assessor

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Younan v. City of Rome Assessor

256 A.D.2d 1122, 684 N.Y.S.2d 804, 1998 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 14225

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

DecidedDecember 31, 1998

StatusPublished

Cited by5 cases

This text of 256 A.D.2d 1122 (Younan v. City of Rome 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

Younan v. City of Rome Assessor, 256 A.D.2d 1122, 684 N.Y.S.2d 804, 1998 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 14225 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1998).

Pincite

Opinion

—Order unanimously affirmed without costs. Memorandum: Supreme Court properly dismissed the petition in this tax certiorari proceeding. Petitioners failed to file proof of mailing of a copy of the petition to the Superintendent of Schools and County Treasurer within 10 days of the mailing as required by RPTL 708 (3) and failed to demonstrate good cause for that failure. We reject petitioners’ contention that the failure to file proof of mailing is a procedural irregularity that may be excused pursuant to CPLR 2001 without a showing of good cause. The application of CPLR 2001 to excuse such failure would nullify the requirement of RPTL 708 (3) that good cause be shown (see, McKinney’s Cons Laws of NY, Book 1, Statutes § 144). (Appeal from Order of Supreme Court, Oneida County, Parker, J. — RPTL.) Present — Green, J. P., Wisner, Hayes, Balio and Fallon, JJ.

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

—Order unanimously affirmed without costs. Memorandum: Supreme Court properly dismissed the petition in this tax certiorari proceeding. Petitioners failed to file proof of mailing of a copy of the petition to the Superintendent of Schools and County Treasurer within 10 days of the mailing as required by RPTL 708 (3) and failed to demonstrate good cause for that failure. We reject petitioners’ contention that the failure to file proof of mailing is a procedural irregularity that may be excused pursuant to CPLR 2001 without a showing of good cause. The application of CPLR 2001 to excuse such failure would nullify the requirement of RPTL 708 (3) that good cause be shown (see, McKinney’s Cons Laws of NY, Book 1, Statutes § 144). (Appeal from Order of Supreme Court, Oneida County, Parker, J. — RPTL.) Present — Green, J. P., Wisner, Hayes, Balio and Fallon, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

256 A.D.2d 1122, 684 N.Y.S.2d 804, 1998 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 14225, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/younan-v-city-of-rome-assessor-nyappdiv-1998.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack