You are here: / / STATUTE ALLOWING PROPERTY OWNERS TO CHOOSE SCHOOL DISTRICTS DOES NOT APPLY...

STATUTE ALLOWING PROPERTY OWNERS TO CHOOSE SCHOOL DISTRICTS DOES NOT APPLY TO CONDOMINIUMS WHICH LIE ON THE BORDER BETWEEN TWO DISTRICTS.

The Second Department, affirming Supreme Court’s grant of a motion to set aside plaintiffs’ verdict, determined the statute which allows a property owner to select a school district when the boundary between school districts passes through the owner’s property does not apply to condominiums. The case turned on the interpretation of the statute, which referred only to boundaries passing through single family residences:

… [T]he plain language of Education Law § 3203(1)(b) and its legislative history demonstrate that the statute is applicable only where property is improved by one single family dwelling unit, and not multiple single family dwelling units, and where the school district boundary line intersects property that the dwelling unit is located on. The Supreme Court properly determined that the subject 28-unit condominium complex is not “an owner-occupied single family dwelling unit” located on property intersected by a boundary line within the meaning of Education Law § 3203(1)(b). Therefore, the court properly granted those branches of the school defendants’ motion which were to set aside the jury verdict in favor of the plaintiffs … . Palm v Tuckahoe Union Free School Dist., 2016 NY Slip Op 05558. 2nd Dept 7-20-16

EDUCATION-SCHOOL LAW (STATUTE ALLOWING PROPERTY OWNERS TO CHOOSE SCHOOL DISTRICTS DOES NOT APPLY TO CONDOMINIUMS WHICH LIE ON THE BORDER BETWEEN TWO DISTRICTS)/SCHOOL DISTRICTS (STATUTE ALLOWING PROPERTY OWNERS TO CHOOSE SCHOOL DISTRICTS DOES NOT APPLY TO CONDOMINIUMS WHICH LIE ON THE BORDER BETWEEN TWO DISTRICTS)

You might also like
Landowners Who Have Been Granted a Variance Are Necessary Parties In an Action Challenging the Variance (CPLR 1001 (b))
Criteria for Amending a Complaint to Replace “John Does” with Named Defendants Explained
Criteria for Setting Aside a Foreclosure Sale Explained—Not Met Here
MOTHER WAS ENTITLED TO A HEARING ON HER CLAIM SHE ADMITTED TO PERMANENT NEGLECT BECAUSE HER COUNSEL WAS INEFFECTIVE; MOTHER ALLEGED COUNSEL DID NOT INFORM HER OF THE RELEVANT BURDENS OF PROOF AT TRIAL (SECOND DEPT).
Question of Fact Whether Snow Removal Efforts Created or Exacerbated Icy Condition
PLAINTIFF INJURED WHEN CHAIR IN CUSTODIAN’S BREAK ROOM COLLAPSED, SCHOOL DEMONSTRATED IT DID NOT HAVE NOTICE OF THE DANGEROUS CONDITION AND RES IPSA LOQUITUR DID NOT APPLY BECAUSE THE CHAIR WAS DEEMED NOT TO BE IN THE EXCLUSIVE CONTROL OF THE SCHOOL DISTRICT (SECOND DEPT).
Service Requirements of Education Law 3813(1) Do Not Apply to Disputes Involving the Public Interest As Opposed to Private Rights/Criteria for Granting an Extension (Nunc Pro Tunc) to Effect Service Pursuant to CPLR 306-b Explained
GUARANTY WHICH DID NOT HAVE A FORUM SELECTION CLAUSE DEEMED TO BE SUBJECT TO THE CLAUSE IN A RELATED CONTRACT EXECUTED CLOSE IN TIME, SUMMARY JUDGMENT IN LIEU OF COMPLAINT SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED, OUTSIDE PROOF NECESSARY.

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 © 2025 New York Appellate Digest, Inc.
Site by CurlyHost | Privacy Policy

MEMBERSHIP IN LIMITED LIABILITY COMPANY CAN BE REACHED BY A JUDGMENT CREDITOR;... CLAIM FOR A DE FACTO TAKING ACCRUES WHEN THE TAKING IS FIRST APPARENT, NOT WHEN...