Learn About the Law
Get help with your legal needs
FindLaw’s Learn About the Law features thousands of informational articles to help you understand your options. And if you’re ready to hire an attorney, find one in your area who can help.
Matter of ORCHARD HEIGHTS, INC., Petitioner-Respondent, v. Linda YANCY, Assessor, as Successor to A. Terrance Campbell, Assessor, et al., Respondents. Orchard Park Central School District, Intervenor-Appellant.
Supreme Court erred in denying the motion of Orchard Park Central School District to dismiss the petition in this proceeding commenced pursuant to RPTL article 7 to review petitioner's 2003-2004 real property tax assessment. RPTL 708(3) provides that “one copy of the petition and notice shall be mailed within ten days from the date of service thereof ․ to the superintendent of schools of any school district within which any part of the real property on which the assessment is to be reviewed is located.” It is undisputed that petitioner erroneously served the Clerk of the Schools, not the Superintendent. “Failure to comply with the provisions of this section shall result in the dismissal of the petition, unless excused for good cause shown” (id.). “[T]here is no statutory exception with respect to the absence of prejudice” (Matter of Premier Self Storage of Lancaster v. Fusco, 12 A.D.3d 1135, 1136, 784 N.Y.S.2d 443; see also Matter of Clay Dome & Golf Ctr. v. Board of Assessors of Town of Clay, 300 A.D.2d 1092, 751 N.Y.S.2d 898). Because petitioner failed to comply with the mailing requirement of section 708(3), and failed to make a showing of good cause, we reverse the order, grant the motion and dismiss the petition (see Premier Self Storage of Lancaster, 12 A.D.3d at 1135, 784 N.Y.S.2d 443).
It is hereby ORDERED that the order so appealed from be and the same hereby is unanimously reversed on the law without costs, the motion is granted and the petition is dismissed.
MEMORANDUM:
Thank you for your feedback!
As the largest network of trusted legal brands, we help firms build authority across the platforms consumers and AI systems rely on most. Our network helps attorneys strengthen visibility, credibility, and preference where legal decisions begin.
Decided: February 04, 2005
Court: Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Fourth Department, New York.
Search our directory by legal issue
Enter information in one or both fields (Required)
Harness the power of our directory with your own profile. Select the button below to sign up.
Learn more about FindLaw’s newsletters, including our terms of use and privacy policy.
Get help with your legal needs
FindLaw’s Learn About the Law features thousands of informational articles to help you understand your options. And if you’re ready to hire an attorney, find one in your area who can help.
Search our directory by legal issue
Enter information in one or both fields (Required)