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.
IN RE: LONG ISLAND LIGHTING COMPANY, Petitioner-Respondent, v. ASSESSOR OF the TOWN OF HUNTINGTON, et al., Respondents; Northport-East Northport Union Free School District No. 4, Proposed Intervenor-Appellant.
In a proceeding pursuant to RPTL article 7 to review the assessment of the petitioner's real property for the 1996/1997 tax year, Northport-East Northport Union Free School District No. 4 appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Suffolk County (Werner, J.), dated May 14, 1997, which denied its motion for leave to intervene.
ORDERED that the order is affirmed, with costs to the petitioner-respondent.
In the instant tax certiorari proceeding, the Supreme Court correctly denied the motion of Northport-East Northport Union Free School District No. 4 (hereinafter the School District) for leave to intervene as a party respondent pursuant to CPLR 1012(a)(2) (see, Vantage Petroleum v. Board of Assessment Review, 91 A.D.2d 1037, 458 N.Y.S.2d 632, affd. 61 N.Y.2d 695, 472 N.Y.S.2d 603, 460 N.E.2d 1088). Contrary to the School District's contention, it will not be bound by any judgment determining this proceeding as a result of the enactment of RPTL 727 (L.1995, ch. 693, as amended). RPTL 727 does not affect Section 3 of the Suffolk County Tax Act (L.1980, ch. 837, as amended) which relieves the School District from liability for the tax refund in question. Moreover, it was a provident exercise of discretion to deny the School District's motion for leave to intervene pursuant to CPLR 1013 inasmuch as the School District does not have a real and substantial interest in the outcome of the proceeding (see, Perl v. Aspromonte Realty Corp., 143 A.D.2d 824, 533 N.Y.S.2d 147; Guma v. Guma, 132 A.D.2d 645, 518 N.Y.S.2d 19; Plantech Hous. v. Conlan, 74 A.D.2d 920, 426 N.Y.S.2d 81).
MEMORANDUM BY THE COURT.
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: June 01, 1998
Court: Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Second 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)