|
| |
 |
| |
|
| |
|
Professional Biography |
After two years of practice on Long Island, Steve moved to White Plains in December, 1962 where he has since practiced law. Steve has diverse experience, which include matters involving fraud on creditors, mortgage foreclosures and contested estate accountings. Mostly, however, Steve represents owners of income producing and development property to redress their grievances against governmental abuse by municipalities. This interest manifests itself principally in the areas of tax certiorari law (real property assessment appeals) and land use. Mr. Davis counts to his credit many millions of dollars of tax refunds and savings for his many shopping center, office building, apartment building, and industrial property owner-clients, along with benefits to land use clients of added property value by reason of obtaining land use unjustly denied or overturning improper over-regulation.
|
|
Significant Matters and Cases: |
| • |
Longport Realty Corp., v. Eklund, 44 Misc. 2d 1020 (Sup. Ct., Westchester 1964). On behalf of the Town of Rye, in this case Steve established for Westchester County tax certiorai practice the evaluation methodology of adjusting the actual tax rate by the ratio of assessed value to full value, thereby avoiding artificially depress value by overstatement of tax expense when capitalizing net income. |
| • |
Ercolani v. Sam & Al Realty Co., 17 N.Y.2d 299 (1966). Representing a creditor, Steve successfully persuaded the Court of Appeals to reverse a decision of the Appellate Division, Second Department. Upon reversal, the lower court was compelled to recognize the right of general creditors to intervene in opposition to a referee’s report of sale, in order to restore what should have been surplus moneys from which the creditors’ claims could then be paid. |
| • |
Almar Realty Corp. v. Sockolof Bros., 35 A.D.2d 986 (2d Dep't 1970), aff'd, 29 N.Y.2d 735 (1971). Along with Joel M. Aurnou of the firm, prevailed in a reformation action by distinguishing mutual ignorance from mutual mistake of fact, resulting in the client’s warehouse tenant paying real estate tax escalation rent over a base of taxes assessed against a vacant land assessment and not against a completed warehouse building, as might be expected. |
| • |
Davis v. Willinger, 31 A.D.3d 429 (2d Dep't 2006). Years later, once again in conjunction with Joel M. Aurnou, in a declaratory judgment action involving another esoteric point of law applied to difficult facts, achieved abatement of a surviving spouse’s contract with her husband to bequeath the proceeds of sale of the couple’s Miami Beach oceanfront condominium residence to her late husband’s daughter. Applying the ademption concept, the trial court - affirmed by the appellate court - ruled that the promise to bequeath pertained only to the condominium owned by the couple at the time the surviving spouse made the promise, notwithstanding the fact that they replaced their original condominium with another in the very same Collins Avenue condominium building. |
| • |
Sylvan Development Corp. v. Westchester Joint Water Works, 853 N.Y.S.2d 918 (2d Dep't 2008). Representing Westchester Joint Water Works (WJWW), Steve successfully upheld WJWW's condemnation against attack from an alleged failure of WJWW to undertake adequate environmental considerations. Exercising its original jurisdiction, the Appellate Division sustained Steve's argument that WJWW properly relied upon three prior negative declarations for the affected subdivision in discharging WJWW’s obligation to take and consider the required long, hard look at the project’s effect upon the environment. |
| • |
Peo. (Vil. Of Mamaroneck) v. Argueso, Justice Court of the Town of Harrison, Johnston, J. aff’d Appellate Term. 9th & 10th Judicial Districts (1993) and Zaccagninio v. Village of Rye Brook, Supreme Court, Westchester County, Lefkowitz, J. (2004). Invalidated in both cases a retrofit sprinkler system ordinance on the basis that the legislation creating the State Uniform Building Code, which except under certain very limited circumstances, precludes both the Code and local governments from requiring retrofitting to pre-1984 structures. And, in regard to local governments, precludes enactment of any local law at variance with the State Code. |
|
Professional and Community Involvement: |
| • |
Scarsdale Town Justice (1993-1998) |
| • |
|
|
| Education: |
|
| Admitted to Practice: |
| • |
New York
|
| • |
Florida
|
| • |
California
|
| • |
Connecticut
|
| • |
United States District Court, Southern District of New York
|
| • |
United States District Court, Eastern District of New York
|
| • |
United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit
|
| • |
United States District Court of Connecticut
|
| • |
United States District Court, Northern District of Ohio
|
| • |
United States Supreme Court |
|
|
|
|
