New York Court of Appeals, 1980

MATTER OF HONEOYE CENT. SCH. DIST. v. Berle

New York Court of Appeals · Decided November 20, 1980 · Cooke and Judges Jasen, Gabrielli, Jones, Wachtler, Fuchsberg and Meyer Concur

51 N.Y.2d 970; 416 N.E.2d 1056

Cases that cite this one

7 later published cases cite this decision.

Gordon v. Town of Esopus (N.Y. 2010)
State v. J.J. (New York Supreme Court 2008)
ITRI BRICK CORP v. Aetna Cas. (N.Y. 1997)
Itri Brick & Concrete Corp. v. Aetna Casualty & Surety Co. (N.Y. 1997)
Buffalo & Erie County Public Library v. County of Erie (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 1991)
Clove Development Corp. v. Frey (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 1983)
Bertan v. O'Neill (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 1981)

This list shows which later cases cite this one. It does not say how they treated it, and no review of that has been done. Not a substitute for Shepard’s or KeyCite — verify before relying.

Opinion

51 N.Y.2d 970 (1980)

In the Matter of Honeoye Central School District et al., Respondents,
v.
Peter A. A. Berle, as Commissioner of Environmental Conservation of the State of New York, et al., Appellants.
In the Matter of Town of Canadice et al., Respondents,
v.
New York State Department of Environmental Conservation et al., Appellants.

Court of Appeals of the State of New York.

Argued October 13, 1980.Decided November 20, 1980.

Robert Abrams, Attorney-General (Peter G. Crary, Shirley Adelson Siegel, Jeremiah Jochnowitz and James A. Sevinsky of counsel), for Peter A. A. Berle and others, appellants.

Louis N. Kash, Corporation Counsel (Susan L. Hauser of counsel), for City of Rochester and others, appellants.

Robert G. Harvey and John B. Hood for Honeoye Central School District and another, respondents.

David M. Levy for Town of Canadice, respondent.

Chief Judge COOKE and Judges JASEN, GABRIELLI, JONES, WACHTLER, FUCHSBERG and MEYER concur.

*973MEMORANDUM.

The orders of the Appellate Division should be affirmed, with costs, basically for the reasons stated in the opinion of Mr. Justice STEWART F. HANCOCK, JR. (72 AD2d 25). We point out, as did the Appellate Division, that the statutory exemption scheme and history of section 480-a of the Real Property Tax Law (as amd by L 1976, ch 526, and L 1979, ch 683) amply demonstrates that it was designed to benefit private forest landowners engaged in or about to engage in commercial timber crop production. Additionally, article 4 of the Real Property Tax Law, the exemption article, is comprised of title 1 "Public Property", and title 2 "Private Property" (L 1958, ch 959); section 480-a appears in the latter. We note only that the memorandum attributed to a cosponsor of the 1979 amending legislation (L 1979, ch 683) was actually submitted in support of an earlier version of the bill that was not passed.

Orders affirmed, with costs, in a memorandum.

Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.