T-REX HYDE PARK OWNER, LLC, ap, v. DUTCHESS COUNTY LEGISLATURE RESPONDENTS def

T-REX HYDE PARK OWNER, LLC, ap, v. DUTCHESS COUNTY LEGISLATURE RESPONDENTS def — (INDEX NO. 7621/12)In a hybrid action, inter alia, for a judgment declaring that a special assessment imposed on the plaintiff/petitioner's real property is unlawful, unconstitutional, and invalid, and, in effect, proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78 to review a determination of the Board of Benefit Assessment Review of Dutchess County dated October 25, 2012, the plaintiff/petitioner appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Dutchess County (Brands, J.), dated December 11, 2013, which granted the motion of the defendants/respondents Dutchess County Legislature and County of Dutchess for summary judgment dismissing the complaint/petition insofar as asserted against them and denied its cross motion for leave to amend the complaint/petition.

Thank you for sharing!

Your article was successfully shared with the contacts you provided.

T-REX HYDE PARK OWNER, LLC, ap, v. DUTCHESS COUNTY LEGISLATURE RESPONDENTS def — (INDEX NO. 7621/12)In a hybrid action, inter alia, for a judgment declaring that a special assessment imposed on the plaintiff/petitioner’s real property is unlawful, unconstitutional, and invalid, and, in effect, proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78 to review a determination of the Board of Benefit Assessment Review of Dutchess County dated October 25, 2012, the plaintiff/petitioner appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Dutchess County (Brands, J.), dated December 11, 2013, which granted the motion of the defendants/respondents Dutchess County Legislature and County of Dutchess for summary judgment dismissing the complaint/petition insofar as asserted against them and denied its cross motion for leave to amend the complaint/petition.

ORDERED that the notice of appeal from so much of the order as granted those branches of the motion of the defendants/respondents Dutchess County Legislature and County of Dutchess which were for summary judgment dismissing the causes of action asserted, in effect, pursuant to CPLR article 78 insofar as asserted against them, and denied that branch of the plaintiff/petitioner’s cross motion which was for leave to amend the petition is deemed to be an application for leave to appeal from those portions of the order, and leave to appeal is granted (see CPLR 5701[c]; Hertzel v. Town of Putnam Val., 131 AD3d 921); and it is further,

T-REX HYDE PARK OWNER, LLC, ap, v. DUTCHESS COUNTY LEGISLATURE RESPONDENTS def

Share with Email

Thank you for sharing!

Trending Stories

More From ALM

Subscribe to New York Law Journal