From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Banks v. County of Suffolk

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Sep 28, 1987
133 A.D.2d 438 (N.Y. App. Div. 1987)

Opinion

September 28, 1987

Appeal from the Supreme Court, Suffolk County (Lama, J.).


Ordered that the order is reversed insofar as appealed from, with costs, the motion is denied, and the complaint is dismissed.

The plaintiff brought this action to, inter alia, challenge the validity of a $3 certification fee which has been charged by the defendant County of Suffolk since 1977 for verifying tax map designations before certain real property instruments are recorded, and to recover all such fees which have been collected by the county.

A hearing was held to determine whether there was a sufficient evidentiary basis to support the prerequisites for a class action established by CPLR 901. At the hearing, the plaintiff stated that the first time he paid the tax map verification fee to the defendants was in 1981. Since the fee has been retroactively validated by the Legislature as of November 1, 1980 (see, L 1984, ch 484, § 1), the plaintiff would be unable to recover any tax map verification fees he had paid to the defendants. Consequently, this plaintiff would be unable to fairly and adequately protect the interests of the class, and class action certification must be denied (see, CPLR 901 [a] [4]). Niehoff, J.P., Lawrence, Weinstein and Kunzeman, JJ., concur.


Summaries of

Banks v. County of Suffolk

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Sep 28, 1987
133 A.D.2d 438 (N.Y. App. Div. 1987)
Case details for

Banks v. County of Suffolk

Case Details

Full title:CLARENCE R. BANKS, Respondent, v. COUNTY OF SUFFOLK et al., Appellants

Court:Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department

Date published: Sep 28, 1987

Citations

133 A.D.2d 438 (N.Y. App. Div. 1987)

Citing Cases

Globe Surgical Supply v. Geico Ins. Co.

In such case, the class action would fail as well. (82 NY Jur2d, Parties, § 267; see Banks v. County of…