 |
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| | | |
|
|
|
|
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
1
.
OPINION
|
EXTRACTED KEY WORDS
RESPONDENTS AUTHORIZATIONS COURT DISMISS MATTER TAX MOTION WRITTEN AUTHORIZATIONS VERIFICATION ASSESSORS DEFECT PRIOR OBJECTION DILIGENCE AD2D NY2D SUPREME COURT OWNERS APPELLATE DIVISION ATTORNEY APPEALS TAX CERTIORARI PETITION MISC SOLD CPLR PARTY ROBINSON NOTIFICATION DERUVO |
IN THE MATTER OF CAROL MILLER ET AL., APPELLANTS, v. BOARD OF ASSESSORS ET
AL., RESPONDENTS.
91 N.Y.2d 82, 689 N.E.2d 906, 666 N.Y.S.2d 1012 (1997).
December 18, 1997
2 No. 250 (97 NY Int. 0228)
Decided December 18, 1997
_________________________________________________________________
This opinion is uncorrected and subject to revision before publication
in the New York Reports.
_________________________________________________________________
Karen Strom, for appellants.
Anne M. Danziger, for respondents.
WESLEY, J.:
Petitioners appeal from that part of an order of the Appellate
Division that affirmed an order of Supreme Court granting respondents'
motion to dismiss petitioners' tax certiorari petition with respect to
17 properties for the 1994 95tax year (164 Misc 2d 62). The petition
was dismissed with respect to those 17 properties because at the time
it was filed it did not contain written authorizations from the owners
of the properties for petitioners' attorney to verify the petition on
their behalf. Because written authorizations were supplied with
respect to 16 of the 17 properties prior to the return date of the
petition, the petition should not have been dismissed with respect to
those 16 properties.
I.
Pursuant to Real Property Tax Law article 7 on August 4, 1994,
petitioners served the Town of Islip with a single notice of petition
and petition relating to 30 separate properties. Respondents
thereafter moved to dismiss the petition with respect to all of the
properties, because written authorizations had not accompanied the
verification of the grievance complaint (as required by RPTL 524).
In addition, respondents moved to dismiss the petition with respect to
18 of the 30 properties, because written authorizations did not
accompany the verification of the petition for those properties (as
required by RPTL 706). Respondents also sought to dismiss the
petition with respect to two of the properties which had been sold,
SNIPPETS:
|
|
|
| | | |
|
|
