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: Fraternal Order of Eagles, respondent, v. Board of Assessors, et al., appellants.
Argued-April 15, 2010
DECISION & ORDER
In related proceedings pursuant to RPTL article 7 to review the tax assessments of the petitioner's real property for the tax years 2004/2005 through 2008/2009, the appeal is from an order of the Supreme Court, Nassau County (Bucaria, J.), entered October 2, 2008, which granted the petitioner's motion, in effect, for summary judgment reducing the tax assessments for Lots 80-84 to the sum of $0, and directing that the current full market value assessment, as limited by the requirements of RPTL 1805, for the single entity encompassing Lots 76-79 be applied to the combined parcel constituting Lots 76-84.
ORDERED that the order is reversed, on the law, with costs, and the petitioner's motion, in effect, for summary judgment reducing the tax assessments for Lots 80-84 to the sum of $0, and directing that the current full market value assessment, as limited by the requirements of RPTL 1805, for the single entity encompassing Lots 76-79 be applied to the combined parcel constituting Lots 76-84 is denied.
CPLR 3212(b) provides that “[a] motion for summary judgment shall be supported by affidavit, by a copy of the pleadings and by other available proof, such as depositions and written admissions” (CPLR 3212[b] ). Here, the petitioner failed to submit a copy of the petitions in support of its motion for summary judgment. Accordingly, the petitioner was not entitled to summary judgment and the motion should have been denied (see Zellner v. Tarnell, 54 AD3d 329, 329-330; Sendor v. Chervin, 51 AD3d 1003; Thompson v. Foreign Cars Ctr., Inc., 40 AD3d 965; Matsyuk v. Konkalipos, 35 AD3d 675; Sted Tenants Owners Corp. v. Chumpitaz, 5 AD3d 663).
In light of our determination, we need not reach the parties' remaining contentions.
RIVERA, J.P., FISHER, FLORIO and AUSTIN, JJ., concur.
ENTER:
James Edward Pelzer
Clerk of the Court
Thank you for your feedback!
A free source of state and federal court opinions, state laws, and the United States Code. For more information about the legal concepts addressed by these cases and statutes visit FindLaw's Learn About the Law.
Docket No: 2008-11157 (Index No. 402387 /06)
Decided: May 04, 2010
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)