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
FAILURE TO MOVE TO SUPPRESS EVIDENCE AND FAILURE TO CHALLENGE A FRISK DID NOT CONSTITUTE INEFFECTIVE ASSISTANCE OF COUNSEL.
ALTHOUGH TWO OF MOTHER’S FIVE CHILDREN, AS FULL-TIME COLLEGE STUDENTS, WERE INELIGIBLE FOR THE SNAP (FOOD STAMP) PROGRAM, THE ENTIRE AMOUNT OF FATHER’S CHILD SUPPORT PAYMENTS MUST BE CONSIDERED AS HOUSEHOLD INCOME, RENDERING THE FAMILY INELIGIBLE FOR THE SNAP PROGRAM (CT APP).
THE COMPLAINT ALLEGING THE NYC PUBLIC EDUCATION SYSTEM DISCRIMINATES AGAINST BLACK AND LATINO STUDENTS FAILED AS A MATTER OF LAW (CT APP). ​
THE DNA EVIDENCE GENERATED BY THE TRUEALLELE CASEWORK SYSTEM WAS PROPERLY ADMITTED IN EVIDENCE; THE DEFENSE WAS NOT ENTITLED TO THE TRUEALLELE SOFTWARE CODE EITHER IN CONNECTION WITH THE FRYE HEARING OR TO CONFRONT THE WITNESSES AGAINST DEFENDANT; THE CONCURRENCE STATED WHETHER THE CODE WOULD BE AVAILABLE TO THE DEFENSE UNDER A PROTECTIVE ORDER REMAINED AN OPEN QUESTION (CT APP).
No Probable Cause for Disorderly Conduct Arrest/Defendant Was Standing in Front of a Store with Three Others All of Whom Refused Police Officer’s Request to Move
THE SEXUAL ASSAULT REFORM ACT (SARA), PROHIIBITING CERTAIN SEX OFFENDERS FROM RESIDING WITHIN 1000 FEET OF A SCHOOL, APPLIES TO SEX OFFENDERS WHO ARE UNDER POSTRELEASE SUPERVISION (PRS); THE DISSENT ARGUED SARA, BY ITS TERMS, APPLIES ONLY TO THOSE ON PAROLE OR CONDITIONALLY RELEASED (CT APP).
Although the Right to Appeal Could Have Been Defined More Fully, Defendant’s Waiver of Appeal In Response to a Colloquy Conducted by the Prosecutor Deemed Sufficient
THE RECORD WAS NOT SUFFICIENT TO EVALUATE THE CLAIM DEFENSE COUNSEL’S FAILURE TO IMPEACH THE DETECTIVE’S TESTIMONY WITH AN INCONSISTENT STATEMENT CONCERNING THE IDENTIFICATION OF DEFENDANT AMOUNTED TO INEFFECTIVE ASSISTANCE; DEFENSE COUNSEL’S “PRE-PEOPLE V BOONE” FAILURE TO REQUEST A CROSS-RACIAL IDENTIFICATION JURY INSTRUCTION DID NOT AMOUNT TO INEFFECTIVE ASSISTANCE (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...