Matter of Waldbaum's 122, Inc. v. Bd. of Assessors of the City of Mount Vernon
Cases that cite this one
22 later published cases cite this decision.
- Matter of Rose Mount Vernon Corp. v. Assessor of City of Mount Vernon (New York Supreme Court, Westchester County 2003)
- Orange & Rockland Utils., Inc. v. Assessor of Town of Haverstraw (New York Supreme Court, Rockland County 2004)
- Matter of Consolidated Edison Co. of N.Y., Inc. v. New York State Bd. of Real Prop. Servs. (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2019)
- Cody, Inc. v. County of Orange (In re Cody, Inc.) (District Court, S.D. New York 2002)
- Matter of Traditional Links, LLC v. Board of Assessors of Town of Riverhead (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2015)
- Pyramid Crossgates Co. v. Board of Assessors (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2003)
- Pherbo Realty Corp. v. Board of Assessors (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 1984)
- Matter of Fourth Garden Park v. Board of Assessors (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2021)
- Plaro Estates, Inc. v. Assessor (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2012)
- Plaro Estates, Inc. v. Assessor (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2012)
- Transtechnology Corp. v. Assessor (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2010)
- Eastgate Corporate Park, LLC v. Assessor (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2008)
- North Pole Resorts, Inc. v. Board of Assessors (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2004)
- Sullivan LaFarge v. Town of Mamakating (N.Y. 1999)
- LaFarge v. Town of Mamakating (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 1999)
- LaFarge v. Town of Mamakating (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 1999)
- Board of Managers of Park Place Condominium v. Town of Ramapo (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 1998)
- Hazeltine Corp. v. Board of Assessors (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 1996)
- National Fuel Gas Distribution Corp. v. Coffman (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 1987)
- Nuckel v. Assessors of Board of Assessment Review for Town of Nichols (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 1985)
- Bergman v. Horne (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 1984)
- Sterling Estates, Inc. v. Board of Assessors (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 1984)
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
OPINION OF THE COURT
Memorandum.
The order of the Appellate Division should be affirmed, with costs.
Petitioner’s failure to file a note of issue within four years from service of the 1977 petition or to obtain a stipulation or court order within the four-year period extending its time for filing required dismissal of that petition. Not only is section 718 of the Real Property Tax Law phrased in mandatory terms (“Unless a note of issue is filed * * * an order dismissing the petition shall be entered without notice and such order shall constitute a final adjudication of all issues raised in the proceeding” [emphasis supplied]) (see Matter of King v Carey, 57 NY2d 505; Gonkjur Assoc. v Abrams, 57 NY2d 853; Matter of Albano v *820 Kirby, 36 NY2d 526), but also the statute was a re-enactment of a previously repealed provision and was enacted “to restore the four year limitation for judicial proceedings to review tax assessments,” and to require that “some action must be taken during the four-year period to indicate that the issues are still alive” (Memorandum of Assemblyman Milton Jonas, sponsor of the bill, NY Legis Ann, 1976, p 346), in order to relieve court congestion and to reduce the fiscal problems occasioned by the pyramiding of review proceedings on the same parcel that otherwise occurred (id.). Section 718 of the Real Property Tax Law is, therefore, distinguishable from former rule 302 of the Rules of Civil Practice (now CPLR 3404) considered in Marco v Sachs (10 NY2d 542) in that both its wording and its legislative history demonstrate the intention, not found in Marco, “to have the rule rigidly applied irrespective of any and all circumstances” (10 NY2d, at p 550). Nor could settlement discussions conducted after the four-year period had elapsed without either filing or an extension revive petitioner’s right to proceed on the abandoned petition.
Chief Judge Cooke and Judges Jasen, Jones, Wachtler, Fuchsberg and Meyer concur; Judge Simons taking no part.
On review of submissions pursuant, to rule 500.2 (b) of the Rules of the Court of Appeals (22 NYCRR 500.2 [g]), order affirmed, with costs, in a memorandum.
Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.