Board of Managers of Copley Court Condominium v. Town of Ossining, 18 N.Y.3d 870 (2011)
A mistaken belief by a petitioner’s counsel about the location of a property within a particular school district, resulting in failure to notify the correct school district in a tax certiorari proceeding, does not constitute “good cause” to excuse compliance with RPTL 708(3).
Summary
The Board of Managers of Copley Court Condominium (Copley) challenged its tax assessment. Copley mistakenly notified the wrong school district (Ossining) instead of the correct one (Briarcliff Manor Union Free School District) for six consecutive tax years. Briarcliff School District intervened and moved to dismiss the proceedings due to lack of proper notice as required by RPTL 708(3). Copley argued lack of prejudice to Briarcliff should excuse the error. The Court of Appeals held that a mistaken belief about the property’s location is not “good cause” to excuse failure to provide timely notice to the correct school district, even if the school district suffered no prejudice. Compliance with RPTL 708(3) is mandatory unless good cause is shown.
Facts
Copley, a condominium complex located within the Briarcliff Manor Union Free School District, commenced tax certiorari proceedings against the Town of Ossining.
For the tax year 2001, Copley properly notified the Briarcliff School District.
For the tax years 2002-2007, Copley’s counsel mistakenly believed the property was in the Ossining Union Free School District and notified that district instead.
Briarcliff School District intervened and moved to dismiss the proceedings for 2002-2007 due to improper notice.
Copley cross-moved for leave to serve Briarcliff School District retroactively, arguing no prejudice resulted from the error.
Procedural History
The Supreme Court denied Briarcliff School District’s motion to dismiss and granted Copley’s cross-motion.
The Appellate Division reversed, granting Briarcliff School District’s motion to dismiss.
The Court of Appeals granted Copley’s motion for leave to appeal.
Issue(s)
Whether a petitioner’s mistaken belief about a property’s location within a particular school district constitutes “good cause” to excuse failure to comply with the notice requirements of RPTL 708(3) in a tax certiorari proceeding.
Holding
No, because a mistaken belief alone does not demonstrate the “good cause” necessary to excuse failure to comply with RPTL 708(3), which requires timely notice to the correct school district. The statute requires a showing of good cause, not merely the absence of prejudice to the school district.
Court’s Reasoning
The Court relied on the plain language of RPTL 708(3), which mandates dismissal for failure to notify the correct school district unless “good cause” is shown. The Court distinguished the standard for “good cause” under RPTL 708(3) from the “reasonably diligent efforts at service” standard articulated in Leader v. Maroney, Ponzini & Spencer, 97 N.Y.2d 95, 104-105 (2001), noting that RPTL 708(3) requires a showing of good cause to excuse the failure to notify the appropriate school district, not merely a demonstration of the absence of prejudice. The court stated: “RPTL 708 (3) requires petitioner to show good cause to excuse its failure to notify the appropriate school district, and not merely to demonstrate the absence of prejudice to the school district.” Even if Briarcliff School District was not prejudiced by Copley’s error, Copley still failed to satisfy the statutory requirement of demonstrating “good cause” for the failure to provide timely notice. The Court emphasized the mandatory nature of the notice requirement in RPTL 708(3), underscoring the importance of strict compliance unless a valid excuse is presented. This strict interpretation serves to protect the interests of school districts in being informed of and participating in tax certiorari proceedings that affect their funding.