1. Home
  2. Browse Decisions
  3. N.Y.2d
  4. 92 N.Y.2d
  5. 92 N.Y.2d 179 (1998)
 

MATTER OF FMC CORP. v. UNMACK

92 N.Y.2d 179 (1998)

699 N.E.2d 893

677 N.Y.S.2d 269

In the Matter of FMC Corporation (Peroxygen Chemicals Division), Appellant, v. David Unmack, as Assessor of Town of Tonawanda, et al., Respondents, et al., Intervenor-Respondent. In the Matter of South Slope Holding Corp. et al., Appellants, v. Board of Assessment Review of the Town of Jerusalem et al., Respondents. (Appeal No. 1.) In the Matter of South Slope Holding Corp. et al., Appellants, v. Board of Assessment Review of the Town of Jerusalem et al., Respondents. (Appeal No. 2.)

Court of Appeals of the State of New York.

Decided July 7, 1998.

Attorney(s) appearing for the Case

Gates & Adams, Rochester (Douglas S. Gates of counsel), for appellant in the first above-entitled proceeding.

Brown & Kelly, L. L. P., Buffalo (Lisa T. Sofferin and Karen Cook Serotte of counsel), for David Unmack and another, respondents in the first above-entitled proceeding.

Michael D. Hess, Corporation Counsel of New York City (Paul T. Rephen, Elizabeth Dvorkin, Robert P. Carver and Leslie Wright of counsel), for City of New York, amicus curiae in the first above-entitled proceeding.

Woods, Oviatt, Gilman, Sturman & Clarke, L. L. P., Rochester (William G. Bauer of counsel), for Institute for Professionals in Taxation, amicus curiae in the first above-entitled proceeding.

Sutton, DeLeeuw, Clark & Darcy, Pittsford (John J. Darcy of counsel), for appellants in the second and third above-entitled proceedings.

Underberg & Kessler, L. L. P., Rochester (Paul F. Keneally and Sharon P. Stiller of counsel), for respondents in the second and third above-entitled proceedings.

Chief Judge KAYE and Judges TITONE, BELLACOSA, LEVINE and CIPARICK concur; Judge WESLEY taking no part.

SMITH, J.

In these appeals, petitioners commenced proceedings under article 7 of the Real Property Tax Law to challenge tax assessments made upon their properties. The primary issue in both cases is whether petitioners have proffered sufficient evidence to rebut the presumption of validity of the tax assessments. We conclude that in both cases, petitioners have met...

Let's get started

Leagle.com

Welcome to the leading source of independent legal reporting
Sign on now to see your case.
Or view more than 10 million decisions and orders.

  • Updated daily.
  • Uncompromising quality.
  • Complete, Accurate, Current.

Listed below are the cases that are cited in this Featured Case. Click the citation to see the full text of the cited case. Citations are also linked in the body of the Featured Case.

Cited Cases

  • No Cases Found

Listed below are those cases in which this Featured Case is cited. Click on the case name to see the full text of the citing case.

Citing Cases