Zurat v. Town Board, Stockport

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Zurat v. Town Board, Stockport

124 A.D.2d 287, 508 N.Y.S.2d 83, 1986 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 61326

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

DecidedOctober 9, 1986

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 124 A.D.2d 287 (Zurat v. Town Board, Stockport) 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

Zurat v. Town Board, Stockport, 124 A.D.2d 287, 508 N.Y.S.2d 83, 1986 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 61326 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1986).

Pincite

Opinion

By judgment dated May 24, 1982, Special Term annulled respondent’s 1982 assessment of water charges against petitioners in the sum of $5,324. Respondent subsequently issued a water bill for 1985 in the amount of $6,149.22. Thereafter, by order to show cause dated December 31, 1985, petitioners sought to annul this 1985 bill based upon the assertion that the judgment dated May 24, 1982 barred the subsequent assessment of water charges. Special Term denied this motion, noting that the 1982 judgment dealt only with the 1982 water bill and thus did not bar the 1985 charges. This appeal ensued.

We affirm. The record demonstrates that the 1982 judgment concerned only the 1982 bill. Accordingly, petitioners’ remedy was to commence a new proceeding challenging the subsequent bill (see, People ex rel. Watchtower Bible & Tract Socy. v Haring, 286 App Div 676). In such a proceeding, petitioners would, of course, be entitled to rely on the doctrine of stare decisis (see, id.). We note, however, that a timely proceeding was apparently not commenced (see, CPLR 217; Renley Dev. Co. v Town Bd. of Town of Kirkwood, 106 AD2d 717).

Order affirmed, without costs. Mahoney, P. J., Kane, Casey, Weiss and Levine, JJ., concur.

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

By judgment dated May 24, 1982, Special Term annulled respondent’s 1982 assessment of water charges against petitioners in the sum of $5,324. Respondent subsequently issued a water bill for 1985 in the amount of $6,149.22. Thereafter, by order to show cause dated December 31, 1985, petitioners sought to annul this 1985 bill based upon the assertion that the judgment dated May 24, 1982 barred the subsequent assessment of water charges. Special Term denied this motion, noting that the 1982 judgment dealt only with the 1982 water bill and thus did not bar the 1985 charges. This appeal ensued.

We affirm. The record demonstrates that the 1982 judgment concerned only the 1982 bill. Accordingly, petitioners’ remedy was to commence a new proceeding challenging the subsequent bill (see, People ex rel. Watchtower Bible & Tract Socy. v Haring, 286 App Div 676). In such a proceeding, petitioners would, of course, be entitled to rely on the doctrine of stare decisis (see, id.). We note, however, that a timely proceeding was apparently not commenced (see, CPLR 217; Renley Dev. Co. v Town Bd. of Town of Kirkwood, 106 AD2d 717).

Order affirmed, without costs. Mahoney, P. J., Kane, Casey, Weiss and Levine, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

124 A.D.2d 287, 508 N.Y.S.2d 83, 1986 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 61326, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/zurat-v-town-board-stockport-nyappdiv-1986.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack