From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Matter of Board of Managers v. Town of Ramapo

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Feb 17, 1998
247 A.D.2d 537 (N.Y. App. Div. 1998)

Opinion

February 17, 1998

Appeal from the Supreme Court, Rockland County (Palella, J.).


Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

The Supreme Court correctly determined that the appellants were not entitled to dismissal of this proceeding for the failure of the petitioner to file a note of issue pursuant to CPLR 3216 (b). As it pertained to the matter under review, Real Property Tax Law former § 718 provided that, in a proceeding under Real Property Tax Law article 7, a note of issue must be filed within four years of the commencement of the proceeding. It is well settled that, in a conflict between a statute of general applicability and one of special applicability, the special statute controls ( see, CPLR 101; McKinney's Uncons Laws of N.Y. Book 1, Statutes § 397; Matter of Brusco v. Braun, 84 N.Y.2d 674, 681; see also, Real Property Tax Law § 718 [as amended by L 1995, ch 693]). Therefore, Real Property Tax Law former § 718 determined when a note of issue should be filed in this proceeding and the provisions of CPLR 3216 were inapplicable ( see also, Matter of Walbaum's #122 v. Board of Assessors, 58 N.Y.2d 818).

Miller, J. P., Ritter, Pizzuto and Altman, JJ., concur.


Summaries of

Matter of Board of Managers v. Town of Ramapo

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Feb 17, 1998
247 A.D.2d 537 (N.Y. App. Div. 1998)
Case details for

Matter of Board of Managers v. Town of Ramapo

Case Details

Full title:In the Matter of BOARD OF MANAGERS OF PARK PLACE CONDOMINIUM, Respondent…

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

Date published: Feb 17, 1998

Citations

247 A.D.2d 537 (N.Y. App. Div. 1998)
669 N.Y.S.2d 313

Citing Cases

Thomas v. N.Y.C. Dep't of Educ.

Since the statutes conflict, it must be determined which of them applies pursuant to the principle that “in…

People v. [REDACTED]

The language of CPL §245.20(1)(b) is clear and unambiguous. Accordingly, the People's motion must be granted…