Matter of Eastbrooke Condominium v Ainsworth

Matter of Eastbrooke Condominium v Ainsworth 2017 NY Slip Op 01086 Decided on February 10, 2017 Appellate Division, Fourth Department Published by New York State Law Reporting Bureau pursuant to Judiciary Law § 431. This opinion is uncorrected and subject to revision before publication in the Official Reports.

Decided on February 10, 2017 SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK Appellate Division, Fourth Judicial Department
PRESENT: CENTRA, J.P., PERADOTTO, CURRAN, TROUTMAN, AND SCUDDER, JJ.
143 CA 16-00184

[*1]IN THE MATTER OF EASTBROOKE CONDOMINIUM BY ITS BOARD OF MANAGERS ON BEHALF OF ALL HOMEOWNERS AND BRIGHTON EASTBROOKE HOMEOWNERS, PETITIONER-RESPONDENT,

v

ELAINE AINSWORTH, ASSESSOR, AND BOARD OF ASSESSMENT REVIEW OF TOWN OF BRIGHTON, RESPONDENTS-APPELLANTS. FOR REVIEW OF A TAX ASSESSMENT UNDER ARTICLE 7 OF THE REAL PROPERTY TAX LAW (PROCEEDING NO. 1.) ———————————————————————



IN THE MATTER OF EASTBROOKE CONDOMINIUM BY ITS BOARD OF MANAGERS ON BEHALF OF ALL UNIT OWNERS, PETITIONER-RESPONDENT,

v

ELAINE AINSWORTH, ASSESSOR, AND BOARD OF ASSESSMENT REVIEW OF TOWN OF BRIGHTON, RESPONDENTS-APPELLANTS. FOR REVIEW OF A TAX ASSESSMENT UNDER ARTICLE 7 OF THE REAL PROPERTY TAX LAW (PROCEEDING NO. 2.) ———————————————————————



IN THE MATTER OF EASTBROOKE CONDOMINIUM BY ITS BOARD OF MANAGERS ON BEHALF OF ALL UNIT OWNERS, PETITIONER-RESPONDENT,

v

TOWN OF BRIGHTON BOARD OF ASSESSMENT REVIEW, ASSESSOR OF TOWN OF BRIGHTON AND TOWN OF BRIGHTON, RESPONDENTS-APPELLANTS. FOR REVIEW OF A TAX ASSESSMENT UNDER ARTICLE 7 OF THE REAL PROPERTY TAX LAW (PROCEEDING NO. 3.) (APPEAL NO. 2.)

DAVIDSON FINK, LLP, ROCHESTER (THOMAS A. FINK OF COUNSEL), FOR RESPONDENTS-APPELLANTS.

JACOBSON LAW FIRM, P.C., PITTSFORD (ROBERT L. JACOBSON OF COUNSEL), FOR PETITIONER-RESPONDENT.

Appeal from an amended modified order of the Supreme Court, Monroe County (John J. Ark, J.), entered November 18, 2015. The amended modified order granted in part the motion of petitioner to modify an order and judgment entered March 27, 2015 to the extent of designating owners entitled to refunds.

It is hereby ORDERED that said appeal is unanimously dismissed without costs (see Villar v Howard, 126 AD3d 1297, 1300, affd 28 NY3d 74).

Entered: February 10, 2017

Frances E. Cafarell

Clerk of the Court