You are here: / / PETITIONER, A CORPORATION OPERATING A BUSINESS ON THE PROPERTY, WAS NOT...

PETITIONER, A CORPORATION OPERATING A BUSINESS ON THE PROPERTY, WAS NOT THE OWNER OF THE REAL PROPERTY AND WAS NOT OBLIGATED TO PAY PROPERTY TAXES, THEREFORE PETITIONER DID NOT HAVE STANDING TO CHALLENGE THE PROPERTY TAX ASSESSMENT PURSUANT TO RPTL 704 (CT APP).

The Court of Appeals, in a full-fledged opinion by Judge Garcia, over an extensive two-judge dissent, determined that the petitioner, which did not own the property during the years the property tax assessments were challenged, lacked standing pursuant to RPTL 704. The property was owned by a trust during the relevant years, and petitioner is a family corporation which operates a House of Pancakes franchise on the property. The property held by the trust was transferred to Portia DeGast in 2013. She is the president of petitioner corporation, which had paid all the property. The tax years in issue were 2010 – 2013:

… [T]he parties agree that, during the relevant years, petitioner was not the owner of the subject property, nor was petitioner legally bound to pay the real property taxes. * * * … [P]etitioner here was not “legally responsible” for paying the undivided tax liability … . * * *

… Portia DeGast [is not] an aggrieved party based on her status as a beneficiary of the … Trust. The parties agree that, during the relevant years, the trust itself — not Ms. DeGast — owned the subject property. Like petitioner, Ms. DeGast was not authorized to pursue an article 7 proceeding on the property owner’s behalf. And, like petitioner, Ms. DeGast lacked any legal obligation to pay the real property taxes; to the contrary, the terms of the … Trust explicitly authorized beneficiaries to “enjoy the assets held by the trust without rent or other compensation to the trust, such as by occupying the trust’s real property” … . In any event, the petitioner in this matter is the …Pancake House — not Ms. DeGast. Matter of Larchmont Pancake House v Board of Assessors, 2019 NY Slip Op 02441, CtApp 4-2-19

 

You might also like
Defendant’s Understanding Guilty Plea Would Result In Only a Year and a Half More in Prison Required Vacation of Plea
TWO PRIOR POSSESSION OF A WEAPON INCIDENTS IN 2006 AND 2007, WHERE DEFENDANT CLAIMED THE WEAPONS BELONGED TO ANOTHER AND HE WAS UNAWARE OF THEIR PRESENCE, SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN ADMITTED UNDER MOLINEUX IN THIS 2017 POSSESSION OF A WEAPON PROSECUTION, WHERE DEFENDANT CLAIMED THEY WERE PLACED IN THE VEHICLE BY ANOTHER WITHOUT HIS KNOWLEDGE; THERE WAS A CONCURRENCE AND A THREE-JUDGE DISSENT (CT APP). ​
THE COVID PROTOCOLS WERE IN EFFECT DURING DEFENDANT’S TRIAL; THE JURORS WERE REQUIRED TO WEAR FACE MASKS WHEN THEY WERE NOT BEING INDIVIDUALLY QUESTIONED DURING VOIR DIRE; THE INABILTY TO SEE THE JURORS’ FULL FACES DID NOT DEPRIVE DEFENDANT OF HIS RIGHT TO BE PRESENT DURING JURY SELECTION AND DID NOT VIOLATE HIS DUE PROCESS RIGHTS (CT APP).
Ex Parte Interview of Important Prosecution Witness Re: the Witness’ Health, Addictions and Ability to Testify Violated Defendants’ Right to Confrontation and Right to Counsel
Rent-Stabilized Apartment Lease Is Exempt from the Bankruptcy Estate
Speedy Trial Clock Starts On the Day the People’s Application for Leave to Appeal to the Court of Appeals Is Denied, Notwithstanding Adjournments Granted in the Lower Court
FOR PURPOSES OF THE TEN-YEAR LOOK-BACK PERIOD FOR SECOND VIOLENT FELONY OFFENDER STATUS, THE DATE OF THE ORIGINAL SENTENCE TO PROBATION, NOT THE DATE OF THE SUBSEQUENT SENTENCE FOR VIOLATION OF PROBATION, CONTROLS.
BUILDINGS RECEIVING REAL PROPERTY TAX LAW 421-g BENEFITS ARE NOT SUBJECT TO THE LUXURY DEREGULATION PROVISIONS OF THE RENT STABILIZATION LAW (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

DEFENDANT’S SLOW MOVING TRUCK FURNISHED THE CONDITION FOR THE REAR-END... THE POLICE-OFFICER WITNESS, WHO DID TESTIFY AT TRIAL, DID NOT REMEMBER THE INCIDENT...