Property Tax Case Results
When It comes to Real Estate Law, Case Results Matter
Albany, New York, Real Estate Litigation Lawyer
Officially cited cases involving property tax law, tax abatement and condemnation include:
- Lehigh Portland Cement Co. v. Assessor (Town of Catskill), 263 A.D.2d 558, 693 N.Y.S.2d 671 (3d Dept. 1999);
- General Electric Co. v. Macejka, 252 A.D.2d 700, 675 N.Y.S.2d 420 (3d Dept. 1998);
- Blue Circle Inc. v. Schermerhorn, 235 A.D.2d 771, 652 N.Y.S.2d 817 (3d Dept. 1997);
- City of Troy v. Kusala, 227 A.D.2d 736, 642 N.Y.S.2d 717 (3d Dept. 1996);
- Welch Foods Inc. v. Town of Westfield, 222 A.D.2d 1053, 635 N.Y.S.2d 400 (4th Dept. 1995);
- Welch Foods Inc. v. Town of Westfield, 236 A.D.2d 831, 653 N.Y.S.2d 884 (4th Dept. 1997);
- Niagrara Mohawk Power Corp. v. Cutler (Town of Day), 109 A.D.2d 403, 492 N.Y.S.2d 137 (3d Dept. 1985) aff'd 67 N.Y.2d 812, 492 N.E.2d 398, 501 N.Y.S.2d 325 (1985);
- Norton Company v. Watervliet, 3 A.D.3rd 760, 772 N.Y.S.2d 720 (2004);
- Saratoga Harness Racing v. Williams, 91 NY2d639 (1998);
- Scott v. Keycorp, 247 A.D.2d 722 (3d Dept 1998);
- Hubbard v. Town of Sand Lake, 246 A.D.2d 708 (3d Dept 1998);
- Landau v. Assessor, 236 A.D.2d 403 (2d Dept 1997);
- State of New York v. Helinskl, 222 AD2d 788 (3d Dept 1995);
- North Pole Resorts, Inc. v. Board of Assessors, 2004 WL 3008892 (3d Dept. 2004);
- Eastern Housing Associates v. City Assessor, 784 N.Y.S. 2d 783 (4th Dept., 2004);
- Loughran v. Cruickshank, 778 NYS 2d 225 (3d Dept. 2004);
- Erie Blvd. Hydropower, LP v. Town of Ephratah, 779 N.Y.S. 2d 634 (3d Dept. 2004)
- Mid-Hudson Rural Migrant Ministry v. Fine Host Corp., 418 F.3d 168 (2005);
- Niagara Mohawk Power Corp. v. Town of Bethlehem, 16 A.D.3d 888, 792 N.Y.S.2d 209 (3d Dept. 2005).
*CV, BV, and AV are registered certification marks of Reed Elsevier Properties, Inc., used in accordance with the Martindale-Hubbell certification procedures, standards, and policies.
Martindale-Hubbell is the facilitator of a peer review rating process. Ratings reflect the confidential opinions of members of the Bar and the Judiciary. Martindale-Hubbell ratings fall into two categories—legal ability and general ethical standards.

