Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Official citation and/or docket number and footnotes (if any) for this case available with purchase.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

MATTER NIAGARA COUNTY WATER DISTRICT v. BOARD ASSESSORS CITY LOCKPORT (03/27/69)

SUPREME COURT OF NEW YORK, APPELLATE DIVISION, FOURTH DEPARTMENT


March 27, 1969

IN THE MATTER OF NIAGARA COUNTY WATER DISTRICT, RESPONDENT,
v.
BOARD OF ASSESSORS OF THE CITY OF LOCKPORT, APPELLANT

Appeal from order of Niagara Special Term, canceling assessment of taxes.

Del Vecchio, J. P., Marsh, Gabrielli, Bastow and Henry, JJ.

Order unanimously reversed, without costs, and matter remitted to Supreme Court, Niagara County, for further proceedings in accordance with the following Memorandum: The Niagara County Water District is the owner of 4,250 feet of 10-inch water line which is assessed on the assessment rolls of the City of Lockport. This proceeding raises the question of the taxability of that water line. In Matter of Onondaga County Water Dist. v. Board of Assessors (55 Misc. 2d 481, affd. 30 A.D.2d 643, mot. for lv. to app. den. 22 N.Y.2d 645) it was held that an exemption from taxation pursuant to section 272 of the County Law, extended to those improvements made by a County Water District when the improvements are located within the boundaries of the district. The petition and answer present an undetermined issue whether the petitioner's water line is located within the boundaries of the Water District. We must, therefore, remit the matter for determination of this critical issue. If the court should find that the water line is located within the district boundaries, then it should also determine whether it is an improvement and therefore exempt from taxation under section 272 of the County Law. In view of the undecided issue concerning location, we did not reach the question whether the water line is an improvement. Finally, matters set out in the briefs and urged upon oral argument but not properly presented by the record may not be considered by this court. (Hayes v. Haj, 246 App. Div. 568.)

19690327

© 1998 VersusLaw Inc.



Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Official citation and/or docket number and footnotes (if any) for this case available with purchase.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.