You are here: / / MAINTENANCE FEES IMPOSED BY THE TOWN FOR TRIMMING AND REMOVING BRUSH ON...
,

MAINTENANCE FEES IMPOSED BY THE TOWN FOR TRIMMING AND REMOVING BRUSH ON PRIVATE PROPERTY ARE NOT TAXES, THEREFORE THE TOWN IS NOT ENTITLED TO CREDIT FROM THE COUNTY FOR UNPAID MAINTENANCE FEES, TWO JUSTICE DISSENT (FOURTH DEPT). ​

The Fourth Department, reversing Supreme Court, over a two justice dissent, determined that maintenance fees imposed by the town for trimming and removing brush from private property are not taxes. Therefore the town cannot seek credit from the county for unpaid maintenance fees:

Section 936 (1) of the RPTL [Real Property Tax Law] provides that the county guarantees the town’s “taxes” by crediting the town “with the amount of . . . unpaid delinquent taxes.” The question raised on this appeal is whether the maintenance charges are “taxes” for the purposes of RPTL 936 and thus whether the County respondents must credit the Town petitioners for the amount of any such charge that goes unpaid or is delinquent.

The maintenance charges are assessed against individual properties for their benefit and thus do not fall within the general definition of “tax,” which instead contemplates ” public burdens imposed generally for governmental purposes benefitting the entire community’ ” … . Nor do those charges constitute “special ad valorem levies” as defined by RPTL 102 (14). A ” [s]pecial ad valorem levy’ ” is “a charge imposed upon benefitted real property in the same manner and at the same time as taxes for municipal purposes to defray the cost, including operation and maintenance, of a special district improvement or service” (id.). Although the definition of “tax” does, in certain enumerated circumstances, include “special ad valorem levies” (RPTL 102 [20]), the maintenance charges are not special ad valorem levies because they are not used to defray the cost of a “special district improvement or service” (RPTL 102 [14]). Maintenance charges also are not assessed “ad valorem” because the amount of the charge is not based on property value but is instead based on the actual expense to the town. Moreover, assuming, arguendo, that the charges are “special assessments” as defined by RPTL 102 (15), we note that the definition of “tax” specifically excludes “special assessments” (RPTL 102 [20]). Matter of Town of Irondequoit v County of Monroe, 2019 NY Slip Op 06235, Fourth Dept 8-22-19

 

You might also like
APPELLATE COUNSEL WAS INEFFECTIVE FOR FAILING TO MAKE A MOTION ALERTING THE APPELLATE COURT TO A COURT OF APPEALS DECISION WHICH CAME DOWN AFTER THE BRIEFS WERE FILED BUT BEFORE THE APPELLATE RULING; MOTION FOR WRIT OF ERROR CORAM NOBIS GRANTED (FOURTH DEPT).
IN DENYING A SUPPRESSION MOTION THE JUDGE CAN CONSIDER EVIDENCE SUBMITTED BY THE PEOPLE, EVEN IF THAT EVIDENCE WAS NOT EXPRESSLY RELIED UPON BY THE PEOPLE; OBSERVATION OF WHAT APPEARED TO BE A DRUG TRANSACTION PROVIDED PROBABLE CAUSE; THE AUTOMOBILE EXCEPTION TO THE WARRANT REQUIREMENT APPLIED; THE INVENTORY SEARCH WAS VALID (FOURTH DEPT).
DEFENDANT PROPERTY OWNER DEMONSTRATED IT DID NOT CREATE OR HAVE ACTUAL NOTICE OF THE DANGEROUS CONDITION (A DEFECTIVE RAILING ON A SECOND-STORY BALCONY); HOWEVER, THERE WAS A QUESTION OF FACT WHETHER A LETTER FROM THE VILLAGE CODE ENFORCEMENT OFFICER SHOULD HAVE TRIGGERED AN INSPECTION OF THE PROPERTY (FOURTH DEPT).
THE WAIVER OF APPEAL WAS INVALID BECAUSE THE JUDGE STATED THE WAIVER WAS AN ABSOLUTE BAR TO AN APPEAL (FOURTH DEPT).
Termination Shocks One’s Sense of Fairness
THE EVIDENCE OF “PHYSICAL INJURY” WAS LEGALLY INSUFFICIENT; ASSAULT SECOND CONVICTION REVERSED (FOURTH DEPT).
FAMILY COURT DID NOT HAVE AUTHORITY TO REVOKE FIREARMS PERMIT AS PART OF AN ORDER OF PROTECTION.
ALTHOUGH DOMINICA, THE EXECUTRIX OF JOSEPHINE’S ESTATE, WAS NEVER SUBSTITUTED FOR JOSEPHINE AFTER JOSEPHINE’S DEATH, DOMINICA APPEARED AND ACTIVELY LITIGATED A MOTION TO VACATE; THE FAILURE TO EFFECT SUBSTITUTION IN THAT CIRCUMSTANCE IS A MERE IRREGULARITY; TWO-JUSTICE DISSENT (FOURTH 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

GRAND JURY EVIDENCE WAS SUFFICIENT TO SUPPORT ROBBERY FIRST DEGREE DESPITE THE... COUNTY COURT SHOULD NOT HAVE ACCEPTED GRAND JURY REPORTS RE: THE ALLEGED MISCONDUCT,...