IN RE: GOSHEN SHOPPING ASSOCIATES (1999)

In consolidated proceedings pursuant to RPTL article 7 to review real property tax assessments for the tax years 1993-1994, 1994-1995, and 1995-1996, the Assessor(s) of the Town of Goshen, the Board of Assessment of the Town of Goshen, the Assessor(s) of the Village of Goshen, and the Village of Goshen appeal from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Orange County (Palella, J.), dated January 13, 1998, as denied their motion to dismiss the proceedings, and the petitioner in Proceeding Nos. 1 and 2 cross-appeals from so much of the same order as denied their cross motion for sanctions.

ORDERED that the order is affirmed, with costs to the petitioner.

 The Supreme Court erred in sustaining the instant petitions on the ground that the newly-amended CPLR 306-b, which became effective on January 1, 1998 (L.1997, ch. 476, § 2), should be applied retroactively (see, Blue Hill Plaza Assoc. v. Assessors of the Town of Orangetown, 260 A.D.2d 476, 688 N.Y.S.2d 569 [decided herewith];  Connor v. Deas, 255 A.D.2d 287, 679 N.Y.S.2d 321;  Floyd v. Salamon Bros., 249 A.D.2d 139, 672 N.Y.S.2d 30).

 Nevertheless, the order must be affirmed.   Under the circumstances presented here, the petitioner complied with the proof of service filing requirements under former CPLR 306-b(a).   Specifically, the record demonstrates that the petitioner timely filed duplicate copies of their notices of petition and petitions, which had been date-stamped “received” by the entities on which service had been made.   We note further that the receipt stamps placed on the proceedings relating to the Village of Goshen also contained the handwritten initials of the Village Clerk, and the time of his receipt of the documents served.   In light of the foregoing, we find that the written admissions of receipt filed by the petitioners constituted adequate proof of service within the meaning of CPLR 306(e) (see, Blue Hill Plaza Assocs. v. Assessor(s) of the Town of Orangetown, supra;  cf., Sullivan v. Murray, 145 A.D.2d 826, 535 N.Y.S.2d 811).

The Supreme Court properly denied the petitioner's cross motion for sanctions pursuant to 22 NYCRR 130-1.1.

The appellants' remaining contentions are lacking in merit.

MEMORANDUM BY THE COURT.