Preview
FILED: TOMPKINS COUNTY CLERK 03/01/2021 12:22 PM INDEX NO. EF2020-0345
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 30 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 03/01/2021
CI2021-03485 Index # : EF2020-0345
At a Motion Term of the Supreme Court of
the State of New York, held in and for the
County of Tompkins at the Tompkins
County Courthouse, 320 North Tioga Street,
Ithaca, New York, on January 29, 2021.
PRESENT: HON. JOSEPH R. CASSIDY
A.J.S.C.
STATE OF NEW YORK
SUPREME COURT COUNTY OF TOMPKINS
____________________________________________
In the Matter of: ORDER
Lux Ithaca Holdings, LLC,
Index No.: EF2020-0345
Petitioner,
- vs -
THE BOARD OF ASSESSORS and the BOARD
OF ASSESSMENT REVIEW OF TOMPKINS
COUNTY, NEW YORK
Respondents.
_____________________________________________
Respondents THE BOARD OF ASSESSORS and the BOARD OF ASSESSMENT
REVIEW OF TOMPKINS COUNTY, NEW YORK, having moved this Court for an Order,
pursuant to CPLR §3211 and Real Property Tax Law §702 and §704, dismissing the Petition in
this proceeding on the grounds set forth in their Notice of Motion dated October 27, 2020, their
supporting Affidavit and their Memorandum of Law, together with such other and further relief
as the Court may deem just and proper, and this matter having regularly come on to be heard by
means of a virtual video conference on the record with counsel for all parties present, namely
Schlather, Stumbar, Parks & Salk, LLP, Mark Schlechter of counsel, as counsel to Respondents,
and Harris Beach PLLC, Philip G. Spellane of counsel, as counsel to Petitioner;
FILED: TOMPKINS COUNTY CLERK 03/01/2021 12:22 PM INDEX NO. EF2020-0345
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 30 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 03/01/2021
CI2021-03485 Index #: EF2020-0345
NOW, upon reading the Respondents’ Notice of Motion filed October 27, 2020; the
Affidavit of October 27, 2020 by Jay Franklin in Support of Motion to Dismiss, together with all
exhibits attached thereto in support of Respondents’ motion to dismiss, and
UPON, upon reading Affidavit of January 8, 2021 by Philip G. Spellane, together with all
exhibits attached thereto in opposition to the motion; and
UPON, reading the parties’ respective legal memoranda; and upon considering the
parties’ respective oral arguments and upon due deliberation, it is hereby
ORDERED, that Respondents’ motion to dismiss the Petition is hereby denied for the
reasons stated by the Court on the record on January 29, 2021, the transcript of which is attached
hereto as Exhibit A.
Dated: March _____, 2021
Ithaca, New York
________________________________________
HON. JOSEPH R. CASSIDY
ENTER:
287297\4817-6196-9114\ v3
2
FILED: TOMPKINS COUNTY CLERK 03/01/2021 12:22 PM INDEX NO. EF2020-0345
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 30 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 03/01/2021
CI2021-03485 1
Index #: EF2020-0345
1 STATE OF NEW YORK
SUPREME COURT : COUNTY OF TOMPKINS
2 ----------------------------------------X
In The Matters Of:
3
EF2020-0345 - LUX ITHACA HOLDINGS, LLC
4 EF2020-0347 - 201 C-TOWN, LLC MOTION
EF2020-0348 - 210 LINDEN AVENUE, LLC
5 EF2020-0349 - TODD S. FOX
EF2020-0365 - HOMIK INNS CORP.
6
vs.
7
THE BOARD Of ASSESSORS and
8 THE BOARD Of ASSESSMENT REVIEW
of TOMPKINS COUNTY, NEW YORK
9
----------------------------------------X
10
Tompkins County Courthouse
11 320 North Tioga Street
Ithaca, New York 14850
12
January 29, 2021
13
14 BEFORE:
HONORABLE JOSEPH R. CASSIDY
15 Acting Supreme Court Justice
16 APPEARANCES:
17 For the Plaintiffs: PHILIP SPELLANE, ESQ.
Rochester, New York
18
19
For the Defendants: MARK A. SCHLECHTER, ESQ.
20 Ithaca, New York
21
22
REPORTED BY: JEANNETTE M. FRANZESE
23 Senior Court Reporter
24
25
FILED: TOMPKINS COUNTY CLERK 03/01/2021 12:22 PM INDEX NO. EF2020-0345
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 30 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 03/01/2021
CI2021-03485 16
Index #: EF2020-0345
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18 THE COURT: All right. Thank you. I have
19 read all of the pleadings. I've read that case that
20 you are highlighting, along with the Statutes that are
21 in question here. I believe I can now issue a
22 decision, because I think that the parties need to
23 have a quick decision in this case because of the
24 delay, because of Covid delays as well. So let me
25 just put some facts on the record first.
FILED: TOMPKINS COUNTY CLERK 03/01/2021 12:22 PM INDEX NO. EF2020-0345
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 30 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 03/01/2021
CI2021-03485 17
Index #: EF2020-0345
1 The first Petition with what the parties
2 appear to agree are names of Respondents, that was
3 filed on time. The Respondent is arguing that that
4 Petition is a nullity because the wrong parties were
5 named, or the necessary party was not named.
6 Furthermore, that the Amended Petition is filed too
7 late, that it was without leave of the Court, that it
8 was, and for other legal reasons, including no unity
9 of interest, etcetera that's in the case law.
10 So the first question is whether the defect
11 in the original pleading requires that pleading to be
12 dismissed. And then the next question about the
13 amended pleading, which I've gone through, but that's
14 the second question. So the first question centers on
15 whether mere, what the Court would have to decide are
16 mere technical defects in pleadings, whether the
17 technical defect, if it can be called that, should
18 defeat or not defeat otherwise meritorious claims. In
19 other words, should substance be preferred over form
20 where the form is essentially fine. And that
21 question, you know, do mere technical deficits or
22 defects and should substance be preferred over form,
23 that's the heart of this case.
24 In Great Eastern Mall, Inc. V. Condon, which
25 is the case we've been talking about, it's a similar
FILED: TOMPKINS COUNTY CLERK 03/01/2021 12:22 PM INDEX NO. EF2020-0345
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 30 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 03/01/2021
CI2021-03485 18
Index #: EF2020-0345
1 case. The facts are quite similar. I think it can be
2 distinguished somewhat. In that case, the
3 Petitioners, and the Petitioners challenge the
4 assessment made by the Town of Victor. There's a
5 dispute here whether they named the right party.
6 Ultimately what the Court of Appeals found was that
7 they had failed to name, they had failed to include
8 certain necessary parties, or parties that were
9 necessary according to the regulations. The
10 Respondent is arguing that they challenged the
11 assessment made by the Town, in that case the Town of
12 Victor, which was the proper taxing authority, and
13 they named the Town of Victor assessor, and Town of
14 Victor Board of Assessment And Review.
15 In other words, the Respondents, I'm sorry,
16 the moving party, it's not simply a fact of the
17 identity of the proper parties, but the main taxing
18 authority here was not named. The Court of Appeals in
19 Great Eastern Mall says, "It's clear the primary
20 purpose of a Petition is to give notice to the
21 Respondent the Petitioner seeks a judgment against the
22 Respondent so that it may take steps as may be
23 advisable to defend the claim." And they go on to
24 say, "Therefore, the only substantial right of the
25 entity which could potentially be prejudiced is the
FILED: TOMPKINS COUNTY CLERK 03/01/2021 12:22 PM INDEX NO. EF2020-0345
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 30 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 03/01/2021
CI2021-03485 19
Index #: EF2020-0345
1 right to receive adequate notice of the commencement
2 of the proceeding, and the burden of proving that
3 prejudice to that substantial right is placed on the
4 Respondents, the moving party here."
5 So the question is, of course, what's the
6 substantial prejudice. This Great Eastern Mall is
7 relatively an old case. It's not ancient, but it's
8 from 1975. I'm reluctant to twist the holding, but I
9 do believe it is distinguishable to some extent.
10 There is more prejudice than from failure to notice in
11 this case. There's a reason for the 30 day limitation
12 on Petitions being filed. The State has an interest
13 in knowing its revenues, and this can cause delay. I
14 think there's been delay here. If the decisions are
15 to be challenged, obviously the challenge should come
16 in accurately, it must be clear. I mean I think it is
17 clear, from the brief window that the Statute permits
18 for challenging these determinations, it should be
19 done quickly and accurately. In other words, the
20 State has to build budgets based on this, etcetera.
21 So I think the holding in Great Eastern is somewhat
22 distinguishable, as argued by Mr. Schlechter, and
23 distinguishable under circumstances where the matter
24 becomes protractedly delayed.
25 I am sympathetic to that claim. In other
FILED: TOMPKINS COUNTY CLERK 03/01/2021 12:22 PM INDEX NO. EF2020-0345
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 30 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 03/01/2021
CI2021-03485 20
Index #: EF2020-0345
1 words, though the Petitioner could have, the
2 Petitioner could have amended sooner without seeking
3 leave, named the correct party clearly, nonetheless,
4 Mr. Schlechter, I do find the Respondents have not met
5 their burden here. I'm really assessing the nature of
6 the prejudice. The party, the proper party received
7 notice on time, but also received notice of the nature
8 of the protest. And then, furthermore, where I'm
9 distinguishing was just the delay, which is also
10 prejudicial to the State, or to the agency, or
11 Respondent I should say, or the Defendant. In this
12 context, where the Court itself has suffered so many
13 delays due to an epidemic, um, I can't find that
14 there's been a prejudice to a substantial right.
15 I mean the center of this is that I am
16 reading Great Eastern Mall as wherein that Court would
17 find this is a technical defect that does not
18 substantially, prejudice a substantial right mostly
19 because of that, and the case so clearly stressing
20 that it's a failure of notice. That is the main
21 issue. That issue is not present here given the
22 communications. And then furthermore, the closeness
23 of the errantly named party, I guess I could put it
24 that way. In other words, I agree simply putting the
25 comma in does not name the correct party, but it's so
FILED: TOMPKINS COUNTY CLERK 03/01/2021 12:22 PM INDEX NO. EF2020-0345
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 30 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 03/01/2021
CI2021-03485 21
Index #: EF2020-0345
1 close to what would have been the correctly named
2 party, I simply cannot find, based on what the case
3 law is, that you've met your burden.
4 So that's five cases, and that's a lot of
5 work, and I don't know how you all wish to proceed.
6 But I am going to deny the motions to dismiss in these
7 five cases. Mr. Schlechter, I don't know if you have
8 a sense whether you want to appeal this decision, or
9 whether you want to go forward with scheduling a
10 conference. However you want to schedule it. Shall I
11 ask Mr. Spellane to submit the order denying the
12 motion to dismiss? And then, Mr. Schlechter, and I'm
13 not putting you on the spot here, is there any way you
14 wish to proceed at this point in this matter?
15 MR. SCHLECHTER: All I can do, Judge, I
16 appreciate the quick decision, and also the fact that
17 you're asking Attorney Spellane to submit all the
18 orders, but I think I'll have to talk to my client and
19 see exactly what they want to do with respect to their
20 case now that you've made your ruling. What I can do
21 is talk to them, see whether they want to appeal it or
22 they want to challenge it, and I can let the Court
23 know as soon as I can so you could set a particular
24 scheduling order so we can move the cases along.
25 THE COURT: I'll ask Mr. Spellane, does that
FILED: TOMPKINS COUNTY CLERK 03/01/2021 12:22 PM INDEX NO. EF2020-0345
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 30 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 03/01/2021
CI2021-03485 22
Index #: EF2020-0345
1 make sense, if the parties reach out to chambers after
2 you know how the Defendants are proceeding, I can
3 schedule either a conference, is that how you wish to
4 proceed?
5 MR. SPELLANE: I think that makes a whole
6 lot of sense, Judge, yes, I do. I guess, I concede
7 I'm hemming and hawing here, I don't know if it's a
8 proper time to get into what Mr. Schlechter and I have
9 spoken about. I guess taking a safer course, let me
10 defer right now, and I'll continue to talk to
11 Mr. Schlechter. I think there's sort of an easy
12 resolution here.
13 THE COURT: I have another case at 9:30.
14 The last thing, I do appreciate the quality and
15 clarity of the pleadings in this case. It made it
16 easier for me, and that's why I was able to make a
17 decision. So I appreciate that. Thank you very much.
18 So we're adjourned on this matter for today. Thank
19 you.
20
21 **************************************
22
23
24
25
FILED: TOMPKINS COUNTY CLERK 03/01/2021 12:22 PM INDEX NO. EF2020-0345
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 30 Index#: EF2020-0345 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 03/01/2021
CI2021-03485
1 C E R T I F I C A T E
2
3 I, JEANNETTE M. FRANZESE,. Senior Court Reporter, do
4 hereby certify that I took the minutes of the within matter
5 of Lux Ithaca Holdings, LLC, et al vs. The Board of
6 Assessors, et al; taken at said time and place; that I have
7 transcribed the same, and the foregoing is a true copy of
8 such transcript and of the whole thereof, to the best of my
9 ability.
10
11
12
13
14
17
18
19
20
21 -
22
23
24
25
Preview
FILED: TOMPKINS COUNTY CLERK 03/01/2021 12:22 PM INDEX NO. EF2020-0345 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 30 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 03/01/2021 CI2021-03485 Index # : EF2020-0345 At a Motion Term of the Supreme Court of the State of New York, held in and for the County of Tompkins at the Tompkins County Courthouse, 320 North Tioga Street, Ithaca, New York, on January 29, 2021. PRESENT: HON. JOSEPH R. CASSIDY A.J.S.C. STATE OF NEW YORK SUPREME COURT COUNTY OF TOMPKINS ____________________________________________ In the Matter of: ORDER Lux Ithaca Holdings, LLC, Index No.: EF2020-0345 Petitioner, - vs - THE BOARD OF ASSESSORS and the BOARD OF ASSESSMENT REVIEW OF TOMPKINS COUNTY, NEW YORK Respondents. _____________________________________________ Respondents THE BOARD OF ASSESSORS and the BOARD OF ASSESSMENT REVIEW OF TOMPKINS COUNTY, NEW YORK, having moved this Court for an Order, pursuant to CPLR §3211 and Real Property Tax Law §702 and §704, dismissing the Petition in this proceeding on the grounds set forth in their Notice of Motion dated October 27, 2020, their supporting Affidavit and their Memorandum of Law, together with such other and further relief as the Court may deem just and proper, and this matter having regularly come on to be heard by means of a virtual video conference on the record with counsel for all parties present, namely Schlather, Stumbar, Parks & Salk, LLP, Mark Schlechter of counsel, as counsel to Respondents, and Harris Beach PLLC, Philip G. Spellane of counsel, as counsel to Petitioner; FILED: TOMPKINS COUNTY CLERK 03/01/2021 12:22 PM INDEX NO. EF2020-0345 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 30 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 03/01/2021 CI2021-03485 Index #: EF2020-0345 NOW, upon reading the Respondents’ Notice of Motion filed October 27, 2020; the Affidavit of October 27, 2020 by Jay Franklin in Support of Motion to Dismiss, together with all exhibits attached thereto in support of Respondents’ motion to dismiss, and UPON, upon reading Affidavit of January 8, 2021 by Philip G. Spellane, together with all exhibits attached thereto in opposition to the motion; and UPON, reading the parties’ respective legal memoranda; and upon considering the parties’ respective oral arguments and upon due deliberation, it is hereby ORDERED, that Respondents’ motion to dismiss the Petition is hereby denied for the reasons stated by the Court on the record on January 29, 2021, the transcript of which is attached hereto as Exhibit A. Dated: March _____, 2021 Ithaca, New York ________________________________________ HON. JOSEPH R. CASSIDY ENTER: 287297\4817-6196-9114\ v3 2 FILED: TOMPKINS COUNTY CLERK 03/01/2021 12:22 PM INDEX NO. EF2020-0345 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 30 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 03/01/2021 CI2021-03485 1 Index #: EF2020-0345 1 STATE OF NEW YORK SUPREME COURT : COUNTY OF TOMPKINS 2 ----------------------------------------X In The Matters Of: 3 EF2020-0345 - LUX ITHACA HOLDINGS, LLC 4 EF2020-0347 - 201 C-TOWN, LLC MOTION EF2020-0348 - 210 LINDEN AVENUE, LLC 5 EF2020-0349 - TODD S. FOX EF2020-0365 - HOMIK INNS CORP. 6 vs. 7 THE BOARD Of ASSESSORS and 8 THE BOARD Of ASSESSMENT REVIEW of TOMPKINS COUNTY, NEW YORK 9 ----------------------------------------X 10 Tompkins County Courthouse 11 320 North Tioga Street Ithaca, New York 14850 12 January 29, 2021 13 14 BEFORE: HONORABLE JOSEPH R. CASSIDY 15 Acting Supreme Court Justice 16 APPEARANCES: 17 For the Plaintiffs: PHILIP SPELLANE, ESQ. Rochester, New York 18 19 For the Defendants: MARK A. SCHLECHTER, ESQ. 20 Ithaca, New York 21 22 REPORTED BY: JEANNETTE M. FRANZESE 23 Senior Court Reporter 24 25 FILED: TOMPKINS COUNTY CLERK 03/01/2021 12:22 PM INDEX NO. EF2020-0345 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 30 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 03/01/2021 CI2021-03485 16 Index #: EF2020-0345 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 THE COURT: All right. Thank you. I have 19 read all of the pleadings. I've read that case that 20 you are highlighting, along with the Statutes that are 21 in question here. I believe I can now issue a 22 decision, because I think that the parties need to 23 have a quick decision in this case because of the 24 delay, because of Covid delays as well. So let me 25 just put some facts on the record first. FILED: TOMPKINS COUNTY CLERK 03/01/2021 12:22 PM INDEX NO. EF2020-0345 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 30 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 03/01/2021 CI2021-03485 17 Index #: EF2020-0345 1 The first Petition with what the parties 2 appear to agree are names of Respondents, that was 3 filed on time. The Respondent is arguing that that 4 Petition is a nullity because the wrong parties were 5 named, or the necessary party was not named. 6 Furthermore, that the Amended Petition is filed too 7 late, that it was without leave of the Court, that it 8 was, and for other legal reasons, including no unity 9 of interest, etcetera that's in the case law. 10 So the first question is whether the defect 11 in the original pleading requires that pleading to be 12 dismissed. And then the next question about the 13 amended pleading, which I've gone through, but that's 14 the second question. So the first question centers on 15 whether mere, what the Court would have to decide are 16 mere technical defects in pleadings, whether the 17 technical defect, if it can be called that, should 18 defeat or not defeat otherwise meritorious claims. In 19 other words, should substance be preferred over form 20 where the form is essentially fine. And that 21 question, you know, do mere technical deficits or 22 defects and should substance be preferred over form, 23 that's the heart of this case. 24 In Great Eastern Mall, Inc. V. Condon, which 25 is the case we've been talking about, it's a similar FILED: TOMPKINS COUNTY CLERK 03/01/2021 12:22 PM INDEX NO. EF2020-0345 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 30 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 03/01/2021 CI2021-03485 18 Index #: EF2020-0345 1 case. The facts are quite similar. I think it can be 2 distinguished somewhat. In that case, the 3 Petitioners, and the Petitioners challenge the 4 assessment made by the Town of Victor. There's a 5 dispute here whether they named the right party. 6 Ultimately what the Court of Appeals found was that 7 they had failed to name, they had failed to include 8 certain necessary parties, or parties that were 9 necessary according to the regulations. The 10 Respondent is arguing that they challenged the 11 assessment made by the Town, in that case the Town of 12 Victor, which was the proper taxing authority, and 13 they named the Town of Victor assessor, and Town of 14 Victor Board of Assessment And Review. 15 In other words, the Respondents, I'm sorry, 16 the moving party, it's not simply a fact of the 17 identity of the proper parties, but the main taxing 18 authority here was not named. The Court of Appeals in 19 Great Eastern Mall says, "It's clear the primary 20 purpose of a Petition is to give notice to the 21 Respondent the Petitioner seeks a judgment against the 22 Respondent so that it may take steps as may be 23 advisable to defend the claim." And they go on to 24 say, "Therefore, the only substantial right of the 25 entity which could potentially be prejudiced is the FILED: TOMPKINS COUNTY CLERK 03/01/2021 12:22 PM INDEX NO. EF2020-0345 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 30 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 03/01/2021 CI2021-03485 19 Index #: EF2020-0345 1 right to receive adequate notice of the commencement 2 of the proceeding, and the burden of proving that 3 prejudice to that substantial right is placed on the 4 Respondents, the moving party here." 5 So the question is, of course, what's the 6 substantial prejudice. This Great Eastern Mall is 7 relatively an old case. It's not ancient, but it's 8 from 1975. I'm reluctant to twist the holding, but I 9 do believe it is distinguishable to some extent. 10 There is more prejudice than from failure to notice in 11 this case. There's a reason for the 30 day limitation 12 on Petitions being filed. The State has an interest 13 in knowing its revenues, and this can cause delay. I 14 think there's been delay here. If the decisions are 15 to be challenged, obviously the challenge should come 16 in accurately, it must be clear. I mean I think it is 17 clear, from the brief window that the Statute permits 18 for challenging these determinations, it should be 19 done quickly and accurately. In other words, the 20 State has to build budgets based on this, etcetera. 21 So I think the holding in Great Eastern is somewhat 22 distinguishable, as argued by Mr. Schlechter, and 23 distinguishable under circumstances where the matter 24 becomes protractedly delayed. 25 I am sympathetic to that claim. In other FILED: TOMPKINS COUNTY CLERK 03/01/2021 12:22 PM INDEX NO. EF2020-0345 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 30 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 03/01/2021 CI2021-03485 20 Index #: EF2020-0345 1 words, though the Petitioner could have, the 2 Petitioner could have amended sooner without seeking 3 leave, named the correct party clearly, nonetheless, 4 Mr. Schlechter, I do find the Respondents have not met 5 their burden here. I'm really assessing the nature of 6 the prejudice. The party, the proper party received 7 notice on time, but also received notice of the nature 8 of the protest. And then, furthermore, where I'm 9 distinguishing was just the delay, which is also 10 prejudicial to the State, or to the agency, or 11 Respondent I should say, or the Defendant. In this 12 context, where the Court itself has suffered so many 13 delays due to an epidemic, um, I can't find that 14 there's been a prejudice to a substantial right. 15 I mean the center of this is that I am 16 reading Great Eastern Mall as wherein that Court would 17 find this is a technical defect that does not 18 substantially, prejudice a substantial right mostly 19 because of that, and the case so clearly stressing 20 that it's a failure of notice. That is the main 21 issue. That issue is not present here given the 22 communications. And then furthermore, the closeness 23 of the errantly named party, I guess I could put it 24 that way. In other words, I agree simply putting the 25 comma in does not name the correct party, but it's so FILED: TOMPKINS COUNTY CLERK 03/01/2021 12:22 PM INDEX NO. EF2020-0345 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 30 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 03/01/2021 CI2021-03485 21 Index #: EF2020-0345 1 close to what would have been the correctly named 2 party, I simply cannot find, based on what the case 3 law is, that you've met your burden. 4 So that's five cases, and that's a lot of 5 work, and I don't know how you all wish to proceed. 6 But I am going to deny the motions to dismiss in these 7 five cases. Mr. Schlechter, I don't know if you have 8 a sense whether you want to appeal this decision, or 9 whether you want to go forward with scheduling a 10 conference. However you want to schedule it. Shall I 11 ask Mr. Spellane to submit the order denying the 12 motion to dismiss? And then, Mr. Schlechter, and I'm 13 not putting you on the spot here, is there any way you 14 wish to proceed at this point in this matter? 15 MR. SCHLECHTER: All I can do, Judge, I 16 appreciate the quick decision, and also the fact that 17 you're asking Attorney Spellane to submit all the 18 orders, but I think I'll have to talk to my client and 19 see exactly what they want to do with respect to their 20 case now that you've made your ruling. What I can do 21 is talk to them, see whether they want to appeal it or 22 they want to challenge it, and I can let the Court 23 know as soon as I can so you could set a particular 24 scheduling order so we can move the cases along. 25 THE COURT: I'll ask Mr. Spellane, does that FILED: TOMPKINS COUNTY CLERK 03/01/2021 12:22 PM INDEX NO. EF2020-0345 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 30 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 03/01/2021 CI2021-03485 22 Index #: EF2020-0345 1 make sense, if the parties reach out to chambers after 2 you know how the Defendants are proceeding, I can 3 schedule either a conference, is that how you wish to 4 proceed? 5 MR. SPELLANE: I think that makes a whole 6 lot of sense, Judge, yes, I do. I guess, I concede 7 I'm hemming and hawing here, I don't know if it's a 8 proper time to get into what Mr. Schlechter and I have 9 spoken about. I guess taking a safer course, let me 10 defer right now, and I'll continue to talk to 11 Mr. Schlechter. I think there's sort of an easy 12 resolution here. 13 THE COURT: I have another case at 9:30. 14 The last thing, I do appreciate the quality and 15 clarity of the pleadings in this case. It made it 16 easier for me, and that's why I was able to make a 17 decision. So I appreciate that. Thank you very much. 18 So we're adjourned on this matter for today. Thank 19 you. 20 21 ************************************** 22 23 24 25 FILED: TOMPKINS COUNTY CLERK 03/01/2021 12:22 PM INDEX NO. EF2020-0345 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 30 Index#: EF2020-0345 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 03/01/2021 CI2021-03485 1 C E R T I F I C A T E 2 3 I, JEANNETTE M. FRANZESE,. Senior Court Reporter, do 4 hereby certify that I took the minutes of the within matter 5 of Lux Ithaca Holdings, LLC, et al vs. The Board of 6 Assessors, et al; taken at said time and place; that I have 7 transcribed the same, and the foregoing is a true copy of 8 such transcript and of the whole thereof, to the best of my 9 ability. 10 11 12 13 14 17 18 19 20 21 - 22 23 24 25