You are viewing a free summary from Descrybe.ai. For citation checking, legal issue analysis, and other advanced tools, explore our Legal Research Toolkit — not free, but close.

Par Builders, Inc. v. Assessor of Orangetown

Citations: 234 A.D.2d 374; 651 N.Y.S.2d 88; 1996 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 12913

Court: Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York; December 8, 1996; New York; State Appellate Court

Narrative Opinion Summary

In consolidated tax certiorari proceedings, the Supreme Court of Rockland County issued an order on November 16, 1995, which granted the petitioners’ motion to enter judgment based on a stipulation made by the parties’ attorneys in open court. This stipulation involved reducing property assessments and refunding overpaid taxes. However, the appellate court reversed this order, stating that the stipulation was not approved by the Town Board of Orangetown and therefore was not binding on the appellants, citing relevant legal precedents including Town Law § 68 and case law such as Hartford Ins. Group v Town of N. Hempstead and Matter of Dayho Motel v Assessor of Town of Orangetown. The motion to enter judgment was consequently denied, and costs were awarded. Justices Goldstein, Altman, Florio, and Luciano concurred in the decision.

Legal Issues Addressed

Approval Requirement under Town Law § 68

Application: Under Town Law § 68, stipulations affecting municipal interests require approval from the relevant town board to be binding.

Reasoning: The appellate court reversed this order, stating that the stipulation was not approved by the Town Board of Orangetown and therefore was not binding on the appellants, citing relevant legal precedents including Town Law § 68.

Denial of Judgment Entry Motion

Application: The motion to enter judgment based on the unapproved stipulation was denied, aligning with the requirement for municipal board approval.

Reasoning: The motion to enter judgment was consequently denied, and costs were awarded.

Precedent Cases in Municipal Stipulations

Application: The appellate court referenced previous cases to support its decision, indicating the necessity of board approval for municipal stipulations.

Reasoning: The appellate court reversed this order, citing relevant legal precedents including Town Law § 68 and case law such as Hartford Ins. Group v Town of N. Hempstead and Matter of Dayho Motel v Assessor of Town of Orangetown.

Stipulation in Open Court

Application: The stipulation made by the attorneys in open court was deemed non-binding as it lacked approval from the Town Board of Orangetown.

Reasoning: However, the appellate court reversed this order, stating that the stipulation was not approved by the Town Board of Orangetown and therefore was not binding on the appellants.