From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Matter of Rotblit v. Board of Assessors

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Jun 30, 1986
121 A.D.2d 727 (N.Y. App. Div. 1986)

Summary

In Matter of Rotblit v. Board of Assessors, 121 AD2d 727, 504 N.Y.S. 2d 61 (2nd Dept. 1986) tax assessment review proceedings were commenced in the name of Max Rotblit, although that individual no longer owned the subject property.

Summary of this case from Orange Rockland Utils. v. Stony Point Ass.

Opinion

June 30, 1986

Appeal from the Supreme Court, Nassau County (McGinity, J.).


Order affirmed insofar as appealed from, with costs.

The proceedings brought to review the tax assessments on the subject property for the tax years 1983/1984 and 1984/1985 were commenced in the name of Max Rotblit, although that individual had conveyed the subject property to his son and daughter on June 9, 1982. However, one of the record owners executed the authorizations for those petitions.

Under such circumstances, Special Term appropriately deemed the defect in those petitions "technical" rather than "jurisdictional", and permitted the names of the record owners to be substituted for that of Max Rotblit. "`The Tax Law relating to review of assessments is remedial in character and should be liberally construed to the end that the taxpayer's right to have his assessment reviewed should not be defeated by a technicality'" (Matter of Great E. Mall v. Condon, 36 N.Y.2d 544, 548, quoting from People ex rel. New York Omnibus Corp. v Miller, 282 N.Y. 5, 9). Like an omitted authorization by the petitioner, a defect with respect to the name of the petitioner, where there is proper authorization by the appropriate individual, is a "technical defect which should not operate to bar the proceedings" (Bergman v. Horne, 100 A.D.2d 526, 527). The appellant "received `adequate notice of the commencement of the proceeding', and * * * [no] substantial right of the [appellant] would * * * `be prejudiced by disregarding the defect'"; and the misnomer may thus be properly cured by amendment of the petitions (see, National Bank v. State Tax Commn., 106 A.D.2d 377, 378).

We further note that, contrary to the appellant's contention, the petition for the tax year 1985/1986 was brought in the name of the record owners. Lazer, J.P., Mangano, Gibbons and Bracken, JJ., concur.


Summaries of

Matter of Rotblit v. Board of Assessors

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Jun 30, 1986
121 A.D.2d 727 (N.Y. App. Div. 1986)

In Matter of Rotblit v. Board of Assessors, 121 AD2d 727, 504 N.Y.S. 2d 61 (2nd Dept. 1986) tax assessment review proceedings were commenced in the name of Max Rotblit, although that individual no longer owned the subject property.

Summary of this case from Orange Rockland Utils. v. Stony Point Ass.
Case details for

Matter of Rotblit v. Board of Assessors

Case Details

Full title:In the Matter of MAX ROTBLIT, Respondent, v. BOARD OF ASSESSORS AND/OR…

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

Date published: Jun 30, 1986

Citations

121 A.D.2d 727 (N.Y. App. Div. 1986)

Citing Cases

New York Funeral Chapels, Inc. v. Bd. of Assessors

The Court simply held: Similarly, the error in naming the prior owner of the Robinson property in the…

In re N.Y. Funeral Chapels Inc. v. Bd. of Assess.

The Court simply held: Similarly, the error in naming the prior owner of the Robinson property in the…