You are here: / / PETITIONER NEED NOT CHALLENGE THE REAL PROPERTY TAX ASSESSMENT EVERY YEAR...

PETITIONER NEED NOT CHALLENGE THE REAL PROPERTY TAX ASSESSMENT EVERY YEAR TO BE ENTITLED TO BUSINESS INVESTMENT EXEMPTION REFUNDS FOR THOSE YEARS.

The Court of Appeals, in a full-fledged opinion by Judge DiFiore, over a dissent, reversing the Appellate Division, determined petitioner need not challenge the real property tax assessment every year to be entitled to business-investment-exemption refunds for the years following the year the assessment and exemption were challenged. Real Property Tax Law 485-b provides a partial ten-year exemption for certain improvements made to real property:

… [T]he business investment exemption is of ten years' duration and the amount of the exemption in each of the ten years is calculated using a single assessment roll … . * * *

… [W]hen a computational error based on a single assessment roll results in the miscalculation of the RPTL 485-b exemption, we hold that this error may be challenged by a single petition at the time the error is discernible. It is a waste of resources for all involved, including the courts, to require a property owner to bring a challenge addressing the same error in each and every year the exemption applies. Matter of Highbridge Broadway, LLC v Assessor of the City of Schenectady, 2016 NY Slip Op 03544, CtApp 5-5-16

REAL PROPERTY TAX LAW (PETITIONER NEED NOT CHALLENGE THE REAL PROPERTY TAX ASSESSMENT EVERY YEAR TO BE ENTITLED TO BUSINESS INVESTMENT EXEMPTION REFUNDS FOR THOSE YEARS)/BUSINESS INVESTMENT EXEMPTION (REAL PROPERTY TAX LAW, PETITIONER NEED NOT CHALLENGE THE REAL PROPERTY TAX ASSESSMENT EVERY YEAR TO BE ENTITLED TO BUSINESS INVESTMENT EXEMPTION REFUNDS FOR THOSE YEARS)

You might also like
HERE A “CERTIFICATE OF DELINQUENCY” WAS NEVER FILED FOR ANY VIOLATION OF PROBATION BY THE DEFENDANT AND THE PERIOD OF PROBATION EXPIRED WHILE DEFENDANT WAS STILL UNDER THE SUPERVISION OF THE DRUG TREATMENT COURT; WHEN DEFENDANT VIOLATED THE TERMS OF PROBATION AGAIN, PROBATION WAS REVOKED AND DEFENDANT WAS SENTENCED TO INCARCERATION; BECAUSE THE REVOCATION AND SENTENCE TOOK PLACE AFTER THE PERIOD OF PROBATION EXPIRED, THE SENTENCING COURT HAD BEEN STRIPPED OF JURISDICTION (CT APP).
CITY PROPERLY HELD LIABLE FOR ACCIDENT RELATED TO SPEEDING BECAUSE OF ITS FAILURE TO IMPLEMENT TRAFFIC CALMING MEASURES TO REDUCE DRIVERS’ TENDENCY TO SPEED.
FAILURE TO PROVIDE MEANINGFUL NOTICE OF THE CONTENTS OF A JURY NOTE IS A MODE OF PROCEEDINGS ERROR WHICH NEED NOT BE PRESERVED; FAILURE TO PROVIDE A MEANINGFUL RESPONSE TO A JURY NOTE, HOWEVER, IS NOT A MODE OF PROCEEDINGS ERROR AND MUST BE PRESERVED BY OBJECTION.
THE PARTY SEEKING TO ENFORCE A VENUE CONTRACT PROVISION HAS THE BURDEN OF DEMONSTRATING THE AUTHENTICITY OF THE SIGNATURE IN THE FACE OF AN ALLEGATION OF FORGERY; HERE DEFENDANT DEMONSTRATED THE SIGNATURE WAS AUTHENTIC AND PLAINTIFF FAILED TO RAISE A QUESTION OF FACT RE: THE FORGERY ALLEGATION (CT APP).
EXIGENT CIRCUMSTANCES JUSTIFIED WARRANTLESS SEARCH OF A BACKPACK.
EVEN WHERE A SENTENCE HAS BEEN AGREED TO BY THE DEFENDANT AS PART OF A PLEA BARGAIN, AN INTERMEDIATE APPELLATE COURT IS OBLIGATED TO CONSIDER WHETHER THE SENTENCE IS UNDULY HARSH OR SEVERE, SEPARATE AND APART FROM WHETHER THE SENTENCE IS LEGAL (CT APP).
A CANINE SNIFF FOR DRUGS IS A SEARCH; ALTHOUGH THE APPELLATE DIVISION HAD ALSO RULED THE CANINE SNIFF WAS A SEARCH, THE APPELLATE DIVISION WENT ON TO APPLY THE “REASONABLE SUSPICION” STANDARD AND FOUND THAT STANDARD HAD BEEN MET BY THE FACTS; THE COURT OF APPEALS DETERMINED THE APPELLATE DIVISION DID NOT HAVE THE AUTHORITY TO RULE ADVERSELY TO THE DEFENDANT ON THE STANDARD BECAUSE COUNTY COURT HAD NOT RULED ON THAT ISSUE (COUNTY COURT HELD THE SNIFF WAS NOT A SEARCH); THE MATTER WAS SENT BACK TO COUNTY COURT FOR RULINGS ON THE STANDARD FOR A SNIFF SEARCH (CT APP). ​
WHETHER “CLEANING” IS A COVERED ACTIVITY UNDER LABOR LAW 240(1) DEPENDS ON WHETHER THE CLEANING WORK IS “ROUTINE;” “ROUTINE” CLEANING WORK IS NOT COVERED (CT APP). ​

Categories

Sign Up for the Mailing List to Be Notified When the Site Is Updated.

  • This field is for validation purposes and should be left unchanged.

Copyright © 2026 New York Appellate Digest, Inc.
Site by CurlyHost | Privacy Policy

STORM IN PROGRESS RULE APPLIED AS A MATTER OF LAW. POLICE DID NOT NOTICE SIGNS OF INTOXICATION UNTIL AFTER DEFENDANT WAS STOPPED...