New York Law Review

Tag: Verification

  • Matter of Rose/Chaikin/Winkler v. Assessor of Town of Islip, 92 N.Y.2d 84 (1998): Correcting Defective Verification in Tax Certiorari Petitions

    Matter of Rose/Chaikin/Winkler v. Assessor of Town of Islip, 92 N.Y.2d 84 (1998)

    A defectively verified tax certiorari petition can be corrected by filing written authorizations from the property owners prior to the return date of the petition, provided no substantial right of the opposing party is prejudiced.

    Summary

    This case addresses the issue of defective verification in tax certiorari petitions under Real Property Tax Law (RPTL) Article 7. The petitioners filed a tax certiorari petition for multiple properties without written authorizations from all property owners. After the town raised objections, the petitioners obtained and filed authorizations for most properties before the return date. The Court of Appeals held that the defect was cured for those properties where authorizations were filed before the return date, as no substantial right of the town was prejudiced. The decision emphasizes that technical defects should be disregarded when no prejudice results and the matter can be resolved on its merits.

    Facts

    On August 4, 1994, petitioners served the Town of Islip with a single notice of petition and petition relating to 30 separate properties, initiating a tax certiorari proceeding. Respondents moved to dismiss the petition, citing the lack of written authorizations from the property owners for the attorney verifying the petition, as required by RPTL 706. Respondents’ attorney sent a letter identifying 17 properties lacking proper authorization. Prior to the petition’s return date, petitioners obtained and served written authorizations for 16 of those 17 properties.

    Procedural History

    The Supreme Court initially denied the motion to dismiss for properties with authorizations filed with the petition, holding that lack of authorization at the grievance stage was not a bar. The court granted the motion to dismiss for the 17 properties lacking authorizations with the original petition, finding the town acted with due diligence in objecting. The Appellate Division affirmed. The Court of Appeals granted petitioners’ cross-motion for leave to appeal, reversing the lower court’s decision regarding the 16 properties for which authorizations were subsequently filed.

    Issue(s)

    Whether a tax certiorari petition should be dismissed when the written authorizations required by RPTL 706(2) are not included with the initial filing but are provided before the return date of the petition.

    Holding

    Yes, because the defect in verification was cured by filing the written authorizations before the return date, and no substantial right of the respondents was prejudiced. Supreme Court should have disregarded the technical infirmity pursuant to CPLR 2001 and 3026 and denied the motion to dismiss with regard to 16 of the properties.

    Court’s Reasoning

    The Court of Appeals reasoned that while RPTL 706(2) requires written authorization for an agent to verify a tax certiorari petition, the absence of such authorization is not a jurisdictional defect. The court emphasized that the purpose of the authorization requirement is to prevent unauthorized filings. Citing CPLR 3022, the court acknowledged that a recipient of a defectively verified pleading can treat it as a nullity if returned with due diligence. However, even assuming the town acted with due diligence in objecting, the court found that the defect was corrected when the authorizations were filed before the return date. The court stated, “Supreme Court specifically found that no substantial right of respondents was prejudiced as a result of petitioners’ defective verification (164 Misc 2d, at 66). Therefore, Supreme Court should have disregarded the technical infirmity pursuant to CPLR 2001 and 3026 and denied the motion to dismiss with regard to 16 of the properties.” The Court applied the principle that technical defects should be disregarded when no prejudice results, allowing the case to be decided on its merits. The court also noted that the error in naming the prior owner of one property was similarly a technical defect that was corrected by the subsequent authorization from the current owner, referencing Matter of Divi Hotels Mktg. v Board of Assessors, 207 AD2d 580; Matter of Rotblit v Board of Assessors, 121 AD2d 727.

  • People v. Case, 69 N.Y.2d 917 (1987): Requirements for Valid Accusatory Instruments in Criminal Actions

    People v. Case, 69 N.Y.2d 917 (1987)

    In a criminal action, the court obtains jurisdiction only through the filing of valid and sufficient accusatory instruments that comply with the verification requirements of the Criminal Procedure Law (CPL).

    Summary

    The defendant was charged with violating a town zoning ordinance. The charges were initiated via a “notice of violation” and a “complaint violation.” The New York Court of Appeals reversed the County Court’s order, holding that the instruments served upon the defendant were not valid accusatory instruments because they failed to meet the verification requirements of the CPL. Since violation of the zoning ordinance is a criminal act, the criminal action was improperly commenced, and the court lacked jurisdiction. The motion to dismiss should have been granted.

    Facts

    The Town of Brighton served the defendant with a “notice of violation” and a “complaint violation,” alleging that he had breached the town’s zoning ordinance. The town’s zoning ordinance deems a violation a criminal act.

    Procedural History

    The defendant was served with a notice of violation and a complaint violation in Town Court. The County Court reviewed the lower court ruling. The New York Court of Appeals then reviewed the County Court’s order.

    Issue(s)

    Whether a “notice of violation” and a “complaint violation” constitute valid accusatory instruments in a criminal action for violating a town zoning ordinance, where the instruments are not verified according to CPL 100.15 and CPL 100.30.

    Holding

    No, because CPL 100.15 requires verification of the accusatory instrument by the complainant, and CPL 100.30 mandates that such verification be made either through an oath before the court or a designated officer, or by including a warning that false statements are punishable as a class A misdemeanor. The instruments in this case lacked the required verification.

    Court’s Reasoning

    The Court of Appeals reasoned that because the violation of the zoning ordinance is a criminal act under Town Law § 268 and Town of Brighton Zoning Code § 42-34, the proceedings constitute a criminal action. “A criminal action must be commenced by the filing of valid and sufficient accusatory instruments in order for the court to obtain jurisdiction over the matter (see, CPL 100.05; People v Scott, 3 NY2d 148).” The Court then analyzed whether the “notice of violation” and “complaint violation” met the requirements of accusatory instruments under Article 100 of the CPL.

    CPL 100.15 requires the accusatory instrument to be verified by the complainant. CPL 100.30 details the required methods for verification, including swearing the instrument before a court, notary public, or designated officer, or including a statutory warning about the penalties for false statements. Since neither instrument was verified according to CPL 100.30, they were not valid accusatory instruments. The court stated, “Inasmuch as neither the notice of violation nor the complaint violation was verified pursuant to CPL 100.30, they were not valid as accusatory instruments. The action therefore must be dismissed (see, People v Scott, supra).” Consequently, the court reversed the County Court’s order and granted the defendant’s motion to dismiss due to lack of jurisdiction.