| Matter of Ace Hardware Corp. v Little |
| 2008 NY Slip Op 02070 [49 AD3d 1008] |
| March 13, 2008 |
| Appellate Division, Third Department |
| In the Matter of Ace Hardware Corporation, Respondent, vMarjorie Little, as Assessor of the Town of Wilton, et al., Respondents, and South Glens FallsCentral School District, Appellant. |
—[*1] Gates & Adams, Rochester (Douglas S. Gates of counsel), for Ace Hardware Corporation,respondent.
Cardona, P.J. Appeal from a judgment of the Supreme Court (Ferradino, J.), entered October30, 2006 in Saratoga County, which, in a proceeding pursuant to RPTL article 7, denied a motionby respondent South Glens Falls Central School District to dismiss the petition.
In 1996, petitioner and the County of Saratoga Industrial Development Agency (hereinafterSIDA) entered into an agreement whereby SIDA agreed to purchase a parcel of land in the Townof Wilton, Saratoga County, build a warehouse facility on it, and lease the property to petitioner.In return, petitioner agreed to make annual payments in lieu of taxes (hereinafter PILOT), theamounts of which would be based upon the assessed value of the property. In 2000, petitionerand SIDA sold a small portion of the parcel to the State to be used as a State Police helipad. As aresult of the sale, the assessment for the parcel was reduced by $3,000, i.e., from $31,848,800 to$31,845,800. Thereafter, petitioner filed a grievance with respondent Marjorie [*2]Little and respondent Board of Assessment Review of the Town ofWilton, requesting that the assessment be reduced because it was incorrectly valued.Subsequently, the assessment was reduced to $29,637,300.
In July 2003, petitioner commenced this RPTL article 7 proceeding challenging, among otherthings, the assessment of the parcel as excessive. Respondent South Glens Falls Central SchoolDistrict filed a notice of appearance and intervened in the proceeding. In June 2006, the SchoolDistrict moved to dismiss the petition. Supreme Court denied the motion, prompting this appealby the School District.
During the pendency of this appeal, Supreme Court issued a decision which, among otherthings, dismissed the subject petition on the merits and a judgment to that effect was thereafterentered. Significantly, "[t]he right to take a direct appeal from an intermediate order terminateswith the entry of a final judgment" (Pixel Intl. Network v State of New York, 255 AD2d666, 666 [1998]) and, therefore, the instant appeal must be dismissed (see Dolan vJaeger, 285 AD2d 844, 846 n 2 [2001]; Pixel Intl. Network v State of New York,supra).[FN*]
Carpinello, Lahtinen, Kane and Kavanagh, JJ., concur. Ordered that the appeal is dismissed,without costs.
Footnote *: To the extent that the partiesindicate that pivotal issues remain unresolved, we note that "an appeal from a final judgmentbrings up for review all interlocutory orders" (Warnke v Warner-Lambert Co., 21 AD3d 654, 655 n 2 [2005];see CPLR 5501 [a] [1]).