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
COMPLAINT STATED A CAUSE OF ACTION TO QUIET TITLE AND SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN DISMISSED, CRITERIA EXPLAINED (SECOND DEPT).
POLICE OFFICER’S TESTIMONY INCREDIBLE AND UNSUPPORTED BY ANY EVIDENCE, CONVICTION REVERSED AS AGAINST THE WEIGHT OF THE EVIDENCE.
MOTION TO DISCONTINUE STATE FORECLOSURE ACTION WHILE FORECLOSURE WAS PURSUED IN FEDERAL COURT SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED WITHOUT PREJUDICE BECAUSE THERE WAS NO SHOWING OF PREJUDICE ON THE PART OF DEFENDANT (SECOND DEPT).
LATE NOTICE OF CLAIM IN THIS MEDICAL MALPRACTICE ACTION, SERVED THREE YEARS AFTER THE DEVELOPMENTALLY DELAYED CHILD’S BIRTH, SHOULD HAVE BEEN DEEMED TIMELY SERVED (SECOND DEPT).
HERE THE FIRST “NAIL AND MAIL” AFFIDAVIT BY THE PROCESS SERVER FAILED TO DEMONSTRATE THE REQUIRED MAILING; A SECOND AFFIDAVIT WAS SUBMITTED WHICH DESCRIBED THE MAILING; THE SECOND AFFIDAVIT DID NOT CURE THE DEFECT IN THE ORIGINAL AFFIDAVIT; THEREFORE A HEARING ON THE VALIDITY OF THE SERVICE OF PROCESS WAS REQUIRED (SECOND DEPT).
A STAY OF THE FORECLOSURE PROCEEDINGS WAS TRIGGERED BY THE SUSPENSION OF DEFENDANT’S ATTORNEY; BUT THE APPEARANCE OF NEW COUNSEL FOR THE DEFENDANT TO OPPOSE PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT WAIVED THE PROTECTION OF THE STAY (SECOND DEPT).
CONFLICTING EXPERT OPINIONS PRECLUDED SUMMARY JUDGMENT IN THIS MEDICAL MALPRACTICE ACTION (SECOND DEPT).
DEFENDANT DID NOT RECEIVE EFFECTIVE ASSISTANCE OF COUNSEL CONCERNING THE POSSIBILITY OF DEPORTATION BASED UPON HIS GUILTY PLEA, MOTION TO WITHDRAW THE PLEA GRANTED (SECOND DEPT).

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

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...