Pullen v. City of Oswego, 252 A.D.2d 959 (N.Y. App. Div. 4th Dep't 1998). · Go Syfert
Pullen v. City of Oswego, 252 A.D.2d 959 (N.Y. App. Div. 4th Dep't 1998). Cases Citing This Book View Copy Cite
1 citation event across 1 distinct court.
Cited for
At page 960 “We therefore modify the judgment by denying defendants summary judgment and reinstating the complaint.”1 citing casethe opinion's own words at *960
  • Rezek v. Vill. of Richmondville, 24 A.D.3d 1169 (N.Y. App. Div. 3d Dep't 2005).published
    Here, in contrast, petitioners do not challenge the constitutionality of the Local Law (see Pullen v City of Oswego, 252 AD2d 959, 960 [1998]).
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
Betty J. Pullen
v.
City of Oswego
Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York.
Jul 8, 1998.
Published opinion
252 A.D.2d 959
1998 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 8451
Cited by 1 opinion  |  Published

—Judgment unanimously modified on the law and as modified affirmed without costs in accordance with the following Memorandum: Plaintiff commenced this action seeking a declaration that certain billing practices of the Department of Water of the City of Oswego as authorized by the Common Council of the City of Oswego are unconstitutional. Since 1973 only single-family, owner-occupied homes in the City of Oswego have been billed for their water usage at a flat rate. Furthermore, since 1994 income eligible property owners age 65 and older have received a partial water[*960] bill exemption. Plaintiff, a senior citizen who rents a single-family home that is subject to metered water usage, contends that the differential treatment of single-family, owner-occupied homes is violative of equal protection. While Supreme Court properly denied her motion for summary judgment, it erred in granting summary judgment to defendants dismissing the complaint. None of the parties is entitled to summary judgment. “This is not a case to be decided on the pleadings. The constitutionality of the regulations must be decided after the facts are determined on the trial” (Weiskopf v City of Saratoga Springs, 269 NY 634, 635). We therefore modify the judgment by denying defendants summary judgment and reinstating the complaint. Finally, we note with disapproval that defendant City of Oswego did not file a brief and did not participate at oral argument of this appeal (see, 22 NYCRR 1000.2 [d]; 1000.11 [a]). (Appeal from Judgment of Supreme Court, Oswego County, Nicholson, J. — Summary Judgment.) Present— Green, J. P., Lawton, Wisner, Callahan and Boehm, JJ.