From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Andrews v. Inc. Vill. of Freeport

Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Nov 15, 2023
221 A.D.3d 809 (N.Y. App. Div. 2023)

Opinion

2021–04030 Index No. 635/20

11-15-2023

In the Matter of Robert ANDREWS, appellant, v. INCORPORATED VILLAGE OF FREEPORT, respondent.

Robert Andrews, Freeport, NY, appellant pro se.


Robert Andrews, Freeport, NY, appellant pro se.

ANGELA G. IANNACCI, J.P., LARA J. GENOVESI, WILLIAM G. FORD, LILLIAN WAN, JJ.

DECISION & ORDER In a proceeding, in effect, pursuant to CPLR article 78 to vacate a tax lien, the petitioner appeals from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Nassau County (Leonard P. Steinman, J.), dated March 24, 2021. The judgment denied the petition as untimely and dismissed the proceeding.

ORDERED that the judgment is reversed, on the law, with costs, the petition is reinstated, and the matter is remitted to the Supreme Court, Nassau County, for further proceedings in accordance herewith.

The petitioner is the owner of real property located in the Incorporated Village of Freeport. The water meter at the petitioner's property started showing high water usage sometime after June 4, 2018, which readings the petitioner disputed. The Village commenced a meter investigation in March 2019, and on April 22, 2019, the Village checked the property for leaks and replaced the water meter. The replaced water meter was not tested until February 20, 2020, at which time the Village determined that the meter was accurate.

The Village issued a water bill to the petitioner in September 2019, which included a balance from earlier in the year, prior to the meter replacement. Sometime after December 31, 2019, this amount due was transferred to the petitioner's 2020 tax bill, which was never paid.

On or about October 22, 2020, the Village sent the petitioner a letter indicating that, if his taxes were not paid by November 6, 2020, his property would be part of a tax lien sale that would be held on December 5, 2020. On or about December 3, 2020, the petitioner commenced this proceeding, in effect, pursuant to CPLR article 78 to vacate the tax lien. In a judgment dated March 24, 2021, the Supreme Court denied the petition as untimely and dismissed the proceeding, determining that the Village's determination regarding the petitioner's water charges became final and binding upon the petitioner upon his receipt of the September 2019 water bill. The petitioner appeals.

A proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78 must be commenced within four months after the determination to be reviewed becomes final and binding upon the petitioner (see id. § 217[1]). "In order for an agency determination to be deemed final and binding, ‘[first], the agency must have reached a definitive position on the issue that inflicts actual, concrete injury and second, the injury inflicted may not be prevented or significantly ameliorated by further administrative action or by steps available to the complaining party’ " ( St. John's Riverside Hosp. v. City of Yonkers, 151 A.D.3d 786, 788–789, 58 N.Y.S.3d 51, quoting Matter of Best Payphones, Inc. v. Department of Info. Tech. & Telecom. of City of N.Y., 5 N.Y.3d 30, 34, 799 N.Y.S.2d 182, 832 N.E.2d 38 ). "A party seeking to assert the statute of limitations as a defense has the burden of establishing that the petitioner was notified of the determination more than four months before the proceeding was commenced" ( Matter of Rodas v. RISC Program, Family Servs., Inc., of Dutchess County, 163 A.D.3d 682, 683, 81 N.Y.S.3d 135 ). "[A] determination generally becomes binding when the aggrieved party is notified" ( Matter of Reilly v. Farley, 120 A.D.3d 693, 694, 990 N.Y.S.2d 861 ).

Here, the petitioner seeks an order vacating his tax lien. Accordingly, contrary to the Supreme Court's determination, we conclude that the statute of limitations did not begin to run in this matter upon the petitioner's receipt of the September 2019 water bill, but upon the petitioner's receipt of the 2020 tax bill on which the tax lien is based (see Matter of East Temple of Melchizedek of House of Seltzer v. Town Assessor of Town of Huntington, 28 A.D.3d 662, 663, 813 N.Y.S.2d 232 ). There is no evidence in the record as to when the petitioner received this tax bill, only that the arrears from the petitioner's water bills were transferred to the petitioner's tax bill sometime after December 31, 2019. Accordingly, the Village has not met its burden of establishing that the petitioner received notice of the final and binding determination more than four months before the proceeding was commenced on December 3, 2020.

Therefore, we reverse the judgment, reinstate the petition, and remit the matter to the Supreme Court, Nassau County, for further proceedings on the petition.

IANNACCI, J.P., GENOVESI, FORD and WAN, JJ., concur.


Summaries of

Andrews v. Inc. Vill. of Freeport

Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Nov 15, 2023
221 A.D.3d 809 (N.Y. App. Div. 2023)
Case details for

Andrews v. Inc. Vill. of Freeport

Case Details

Full title:In the Matter of Robert Andrews, appellant, v. Incorporated Village of…

Court:Supreme Court of New York, Second Department

Date published: Nov 15, 2023

Citations

221 A.D.3d 809 (N.Y. App. Div. 2023)
200 N.Y.S.3d 67
2023 N.Y. Slip Op. 5727

Citing Cases

Rock v. N.Y.C. Emps.' Ret. Sys.

In other words, "[f]or a determination to be final upon the petitioner[,] it must be clear that the…

McCrory v. Vill. of Mamaroneck Bd. of Trs.

In any event, the first, second, and third causes of action are time-barred. A proceeding pursuant to CPLR…