| Matter of L & Q Realty Corp. v Assessor |
| 2010 NY Slip Op 02564 [71 AD3d 1025] |
| March 23, 2010 |
| Appellate Division, Second Department |
| In the Matter of L & Q Realty Corporation,Respondent, v Assessor et al., Appellants. |
—[*1] Meyer, Suozzi, English & Klein, P.C., Garden City, N.Y. (Andrew J. Turro of counsel), forrespondent.
In related proceedings pursuant to RPTL article 7 to review the tax assessments of thepetitioner's real property for tax years 1994/1995 through 2007/2008, the appeal, as limited bythe appellants' brief, is from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Nassau County (Bucaria,J.), entered July 16, 2008, as granted the petitioner's motion to restore the proceeding referable totax year 1993/1994 to the trial calendar and, in effect, to restore the other proceedings forsubsequent tax years to active status.
Ordered that the order is affirmed insofar as appealed from, with costs.
In or around 1993, the petitioner L & Q Realty Corporation (hereinafter L & Q Realty)commenced a proceeding in the Supreme Court, Nassau County, against the Assessor, Board ofAssessors, and the Assessment Review Commission of the County of Nassau (hereinaftercollectively the County) pursuant to RPTL article 7 to review the tax assessment for tax year1993/1994 on certain real property it owns in Freeport (hereinafter the original proceeding).Subsequently, L & Q Realty commenced additional proceedings in the Supreme Court againstthe County pursuant to RPTL article 7 to review the tax assessments on the subject property forthe tax years 1994/1995 through 2007/2008 (hereinafter the subsequent related proceedings).
In the interim, in or around April 1997, L & Q Realty filed a note of issue with respect to theoriginal proceeding. Subsequently, on October 6, 1998, the original proceeding appeared on thetrial calendar. On that date, pursuant to certain procedures that former Justice Leo F. McGinityhad implemented years earlier in an attempt to reduce the backlog of tax certiorari proceedingson the trial calendar, the original proceeding was removed from the trial calendar so that theCounty could obtain a preliminary appraisal, after which the parties could try to settle the matter.Thereafter, L & Q Realty's subsequent related proceedings were marked "inactive pre-note."
Ultimately, on or about December 21, 2007, with the parties unable to reach a settlement, L& Q Realty moved to restore the original proceeding to the trial calendar and, in effect, to restorethe subsequent related proceedings to active status. The County opposed the restoration of boththe original proceeding and the subsequent related proceedings. The Supreme Court granted L &Q Realty's motion [*2]to restore, holding that (1) restoration ofthe original proceeding to the trial calendar was appropriate since L & Q Realty satisfied thefour-prong test for restoring, to the trial calendar, a matter marked "off" the trial calendarpursuant to CPLR 3404 for more than one year, and (2) restoration of the subsequent relatedproceedings to active status was automatic since the County failed to serve a 90-day noticepursuant to CPLR 3216. We affirm, but for different reasons.
A review of the information on the New York State Unified Court System E-Courts publicWeb site, of which we take judicial notice (see Kingsbrook Jewish Med. Ctr. v Allstate Ins.Co., 61 AD3d 13, 20 [2009]), reveals that when the original proceeding appeared on the trialcalendar in 1998, the Supreme Court marked the case "settled before trial." Accordingly, theoriginal proceeding was not marked "off" or stricken from the trial calendar pursuant to CPLR3404 (see Long-Waithe v Kings Apparel Inc., 10 AD3d 413, 414 [2004]; Baez vKayantas, 298 AD2d 416 [2002]; Basetti v Nour, 287 AD2d 126 [2001]). For thereasons set forth in our determination on a companion appeal (see Matter of TranstechnologyCorp. v Assessor, 71 AD3d 1034 [2010] [decided herewith]), the Supreme Court correctlygranted L & Q Realty's motion to restore the original proceeding to the trial calendar and, ineffect, to restore the subsequent related proceedings to active status. Dillon, J.P., Florio, Millerand Austin, JJ., concur.