You are here: / / THE CITY OF OGDENSBURG PROPERLY PASSED A LOCAL LAW REPEALING A PRIOR LOCAL...
, ,

THE CITY OF OGDENSBURG PROPERLY PASSED A LOCAL LAW REPEALING A PRIOR LOCAL LAW WHICH OPTED OUT OF THE RPTL ARTICLE 11 PROVISIONS FOR DELINQUENT REAL ESTATE TAX COLLECTION; THE COUNTY’S ARGUMENT THAT THE LOCAL LAW UNLAWFULLY SHIFTED THE BURDEN OF TAX COLLECTION TO THE COUNTY AND SCHOOL DISTRICT WAS REJECTED (CT APP).

The Court of Appeals, in a full-fledged opinion by Judge Cannataro, determined the Local Law which repealed a prior Local Law in which the City of Ogdensburg opted out of the application of RPTL Article 11 (regarding the collection of delinquent real estate taxes) was not unconstitutional. The county argued repeal of the local law unlawfully shifted the burden of delinquent tax collection to the county and the school district. That argument was rejected:

Inasmuch as the County has no powers with respect to taxation that are not “unambiguously delegated” to it by the legislature or the Constitution … and the legislature has chosen to limit a county’s ability to enter into RPTL 1150 (1) agreements by making such agreement permissive rather than mandatory, it cannot be said that the City impaired the County’s power by doing as the legislature permits it to do under RPTL article 11. Therefore, we conclude that Local Law No. 2 does not violate the statutory and constitutional protections at issue, but effectuates a power the legislature granted to cities wishing to revoke their initial opt-out from article 11. Matter of St. Lawrence County v City of Ogdensburg, 2023 NY Slip Op 02757, CtApp 5-23-23

Practice Point: A city can opt out of the RPTL Article 11 provisions re: delinquent real estate tax collection, and it can later opt back in. Here the county’s argument that the city’s opting back in unlawfully shifted the tax collection burden to the county and school district was rejected.

 

You might also like
POST-RELEASE SUPERVISION (PRS) CAN PROPERLY BE IMPOSED WHERE A DEFENDANT IS SENTENCED UNDER THE DOMESTIC VIOLENCE SURVIVORS JUSTICE ACT (DVSJA); DEFENDANT WAIVED HER RIGHT TO APPEAL THE SENTENCE AS EXCESSIVE (CT APP).
THE FOIL REQUEST FOR DOCUMENTS PREPARED BY COUNSEL FOR THE BOARD OF PAROLE WAS PROPERLY DENIED; THE DOCUMENTS ARE PROTECTED FROM DISCLOSURE BY THE ATTORNEY-CLIENT PRIVILEGE (CT APP).
Where Defendant Is Represented on a Pending Charge and Seeks Leniency by Cooperation with Police in the Investigation of An Unrelated Offense, the Police Cannot Question the Defendant About the Unrelated Offense in the Absence of Counsel Unless Defendant Affirmatively Waives His Right to Counsel In Counsel’s Presence
Even Though Probable Cause for a DWI Arrest Existed, the Arresting Officer Testified He Was Not Going to Arrest the Defendant Until He Found a Switchblade Knife During a Pat-Down Search—Therefore the Search Could Not Be Justified As a Search Incident to Arrest and the Switchblade Should Have Been Suppressed
HERE THE OFFICE OF COURT ADMINISTRATION’S (OCA’S) BLANKET ASSERTION OF THE ATTORNEY-CLIENT PRIVILEGE RE: THE FOIL REQUEST FOR COMMUNICATIONS BETWEEN OCA AND JUDGES WAS REJECTED; ALTHOUGH UPON REMAND THE PRIVILEGE MAY BE SHOWN TO APPLY TO INIDVIDUAL, IDENTIFIED DOCUMENTS, THE OCA DID NOT ESTABLISH AN ATTORNEY-CLIENT RELATIONSHIP WITH ALL THE JUDGES SUCH THAT A BLANKET ASSERTION OF THE PRIVILEGE WAS APPROPRIATE (CT APP).
IN THIS DEFAMATION ACTION (1) PLAINTIFF WAS DEEMED A LIMITED PUBLIC FIGURE REQUIRING PROOF OF MALICE; (2) SOME STATEMENTS PROTECTED BY LITIGATION PRIVILEGE, QUESTIONS OF FACT WHETHER OTHER STATEMENTS PROTECTED BY PRE-LITIGATION AND FAIR REPORT PRIVILEGES; (3) AMENDMENTS TO THE ANTI-SLAPP STATUTE APPLY ONLY TO CONDUCT AFTER THE AMENDMENTS WENT INTO EFFECT (CT APP).
DEFENSE COUNSEL WAS GIVEN NOTICE AND THE OPPORTUNITY TO BE HEARD BEFORE THE ISSUANCE OF THE WARRANT TO TAKE A DNA SAMPLE FROM THE DEFENDANT; DEFENSE COUNSEL WAS NOT ENTITLED TO DISCOVERY OF THE WARRANT APPLICATION PRIOR TO THE ISSUANCE OF THE WARRANT TO ASSESS PROBABLE CAUSE; A VIDEO DEPICTING DEFENDANT WAS PROPERLY AUTHENTICATED; APPELLATE DIVISION REVERSED (CT APP).
Presumption of Vindictive Sentencing Did Not Apply Here Where Defendant Rejected a Plea Offer with a Sentence of Ten Years Probation and, After Trial, Was Sentenced to 10 to 20 Years in Prison

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

THE JUDGE’S POLICY OF NOT LETTING MEMBERS OF THE PUBLIC INTO THE COURTROOM... THE TRAFFIC STOP WAS VALID, BUT THE POLICE OFFICERS SAW NOTHING TO INDICATE...