Matter of AVR-Massapequa, LLC v Jefferson

Matter of AVR-Massapequa, LLC v Jefferson 2014 NY Slip Op 02578 Decided on April 16, 2014 Appellate Division, Second 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 April 16, 2014
SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORKAPPELLATE DIVISION : SECOND JUDICIAL DEPARTMENT
RANDALL T. ENG, P.J.
ROBERT J. MILLER
SYLVIA O. HINDS-RADIX
JOSEPH J. MALTESE, JJ.
2012-07401
(Index No. 1606/12)

[*1]In the Matter of AVR-Massapequa, LLC, respondent,

v

Beaumont Jefferson, etc., et al., appellants (and another title).




Carnell T. Foskey, County Attorney, Mineola, N.Y. (Robert F. Van
der Waag, of counsel), for appellants.
Certilman Balin Adler & Hyman, LLP, East Meadow, N.Y.
(M. Allan Hyman of counsel), for
respondent.


DECISION & ORDER

In a proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78, inter alia, in the nature of mandamus to compel the appellants to authorize, calculate, and issue refunds for overpayment of taxes due pursuant to an order and judgment (one paper) entered September 1, 2011, in an underlying consolidated proceeding pursuant to RPTL article 7 entitled Matter of AVR-Massapequa, LLC v Board of Assessors, commenced in the Supreme Court, Nassau County, under Index No. 406981/09, the appeal is from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Nassau County (Adams, J.), entered June 21, 2012, which granted the petition and directed the appellants to pay the petitioner the principal sum of $46,459.70.

ORDERED that the judgment is affirmed, with costs.

Contrary to the appellants' contention, the Supreme Court did not err in granting the petition and entering the subject judgment in favor of the petitioner. It is undisputed that the petitioner is entitled to a refund pursuant to an order and judgment (one paper) entered in an underlying consolidated tax certiorari proceeding. Under the circumstances presented here, the court properly rejected the appellants' argument that the relief requested by the petitioner should be denied on the ground that granting such relief in this and other similar proceedings would result in "fiscal chaos" (see Matter of Long Is. Automotive Group v Board of Assessors of Nassau County, _____ AD3d_____ [decided herewith]; Keyspan Generation, LLC v Nassau County, ____ AD3d____, 2014 NY Slip Op 01721 [2d Dept 2014]).
ENG, P.J., MILLER, HINDS-RADIX and MALTESE, JJ., concur.

ENTER:

Aprilanne Agostino

Clerk of the Court