Supreme Court Justice
John R. La Cava

New York State Supreme Court
111 Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. Blvd.
White Plains, N.Y. 10601

Ray River Co., et al v. The Village of Haverstraw
Date of Decision: November 16, 2009
[Condemnation]
[Claimant's motion to compel condemnor to make an advance payment granted, despite previous rejection by claimant of condemnor's good faith offer of $1,190,000 for the acquisition, since the matter no longer appears to be on appeal as the Appellate Division has affirmed this Court's prior Decision and Order, and claimant's motion to reargue and/or renew to the Appellate Division has been denied; for the same reason, claimant's instant motion to renew and reargue is denied as moot.]

Cloverleaf Realty of New York, Inc., et al v. Town of Waywayanda
Date of Decision: September 30, 2009
[Tax Certiorari]
[Respondent brought the instant motion to dismiss petitioners' Article 78 action challenging special assessments by the Town for water and sewer improvements to their properties. Town Law 202 and 202 (b) govern the assessment method for financing municipal improvements and generally provide that special assessments be imposed on a benefit basis, or where such benefit basis is not designated, in the same manner as other Town charges, or as may be ordered by the Town Board [ 202 (3)]. By various resolutions the Town created new water and sewer districts and projected the cost per parcel for water and sewer, noting that residential properties were to be assessed based on size, and commercial parcels based on assessed value with additional charges based on metered usage. The resolutions each also ordered that the expenses of the sewer and water improvements "...shall be assessed, levied, and collected...in just proportion to the amount of the benefit..." determined by the Town Board to be conferred upon the properties. Since a benefit based assessment was intended and the current system is not benefit based, but a flat rate as to residential and ad valorem as to commercial properties, petitioners have stated a cognizable cause of action with respect to the respondent's failure to tax on a benefit based method.
Accordingly, respondent's motion to dismiss was denied.]

Affordable Housing Construction, LLC v Town of Monroe, et al
Date of Decision: September 25, 2009
[Tax Certiorari]
[Petitioner's Article 78 proceeding challenged changes in assessments to its multi-parcel residential development on a number of grounds including non-receipt of tax change notices (non-mailing acknowledged by the assessor), and for assessments to properties which were not completely improved with completed structures (contrary to assessor's policy of not taxing such incomplete improvements); petitioner's application to the County Real Property Tax Service Agency for relief on the grounds that the assessed value recorded on the property record card differed from that entered on the tax roll and thus constituted a "clerical error" was denied by the Agency Director without any referral of the Agency's report and recommendations to the tax levying body for the Town of Monroe -- Orange County -- for consideration and a determination on the application pursuant to RTPL § § 556 (4) b and 556 (5) a-b-e.The Court on its own motion remanded the application to the Orange County Legislature for its consideration and determination. The respondents' motions to dismiss were denied with leave to renew, and the matter was ordered to be held in abeyance pending such determination by the County Legislature.]

Consolidated Edison Company of New York, Inc. v. The Town of Pleasant Valley, et al
Date of Decision: September 24, 2009
[Tax Certiorari]
[Motion by intervenor school district to dismiss 2004-2008 petitions for improper service; when tax certiorari petitions were mailed to the Arlington Central School District, whether addressed to the superintendent (2006-2008 petitions) and initially forwarded to his office, or addressed to the School District (2004 & 2005), the petitions were uniformly forwarded to the District’s Business Office for referral to counsel; therefore, based on its custom and practice, the District did not designate the superintendent of schools as the person to receive tax certiorari petitions, but, rather, designated its business office. Despite the district's policy and lack of prejudice herein, the 2004 & 2005 petitions were dismissed for lack of a showing of good cause to excuse the improper service, but the Court noted, as it had in Wyeth Holdings, Inc., that even upon dismissal petitioner may seek leave to recommence the action pursuant to CPLR § 205(a); service of the 2006-2008 petitions upon the Superintendent at the district office was excused based on this Court's holding in Bon Aire Condominium]

Wyeth Holdings Corporation v. The Town of Orangetown, et al
Date of Decision: September 22, 2009
[Tax Certiorari]
[Motion by Nanuet Union Free School District and respondent Town of Orangetown for an Order dismissing the petitions for lack of service on the Superintendent of Schools for Nanuet denied; cross-motion by petitioner Wyeth seeking that such service be deemed proper nunc pro tunc pursuant to RTPL 708(3), or for permission to recommence the proceedings, without prejudice, pursuant to CPLR 205(a) granted in its entirety; here, industrial complex consists of ten parcels five of which were in the Pearl River School District and five in the Nanuet District; petitioner served only the Pearl River Superintendent after making a good faith effort (outlined in the decision) to determine the proper school district (of the four which served the Town); Court held that the well-meaning, but imperfect steps taken to notice the proper district constituted good cause which when coupled with the lack of prejudice to respondent excused the geographical error and improper notice; in so determining, Court rejected Nanuet's claim of prejudice based upon the severe financial implications of a possible adverse ruling.]

County of Orange v. Monroe Bakertown Road Realty, et al
Date of Decision: September 23, 2009
[Condemnation]
[Pretrial motions by all parties, seeking to strike each other's appraisals, held in abeyance, with leave to renew at time of trial; the Court adhered to its long practice, except in the most egregious circumstances, of deferring decisions on motions to strike appraisals to the conclusion of testimony at trial, reminding the parties that prior to hearing testimony from the experts retained by the parties, it is difficult for the Court to assess any proponent’s compliance, or lack of same, with Rule of Court (22 NYCRR 202.59) relating to the preparation of trial appraisals.]

Panorama Flight Service, Inc. v. Town/Village of Harrison, et al
Date of Decision: September 17, 2009
[Tax Certiorari]
[Petitioner's motion for Summary Judgement challenging the revocation of its previously held exemption granted; respondent's cross-motion denied; respondent alleged that Panorama's facility at the Westchester County Airport did not provide services to the general public, and thus did not serve a public purpose, since only licensed pilots and light aircraft owners, constituting only a very few private individuals and corporations who could afford such services, utilized petitioner's facilities; Court disagreed finding that the Town (which had the burden of proof since it revoked the exemption) had failed to prove that the services (provided by petitioner) including flight training, aircraft rental, hanger storage, aircraft deicing, car rental, towing, and baggage handling were offered to the general public without any grant of exclusive rights, discrimination, or excessive fees, and had failed to prove that the persons and entities utilizing such services were not members of the general public who avail themselves of the services and facilities provided at the Airport and for whom such services are intended. Rather, the proof showed that such services comported to the terms of the Master Lease. The County’s intent, as stated in the Lease, is the offering by Panorama of airport services for the accommodation, convenience, and welfare of the public. In addition, the Lease outlined services that the Airport held out as available to the public in its promotional and informational materials.]

Copley Court Condominium v. The Town Of Ossining, et al
Date of Decision: September 10, 2009
[Tax Certiorari]
[Motion by respondents for an Order dismissing 2002-2007 petitions for improper service on the Superintendent of Schools for the Ossining School District rather than upon the Briarcliff Manor Superintendent denied and petitioner's cross motion for leave to serve Briarcliff nunc pro tunc, granted; while the lack of prejudice alone has been held to be inadequate to supply the good cause required to excuse a lack of service (see e.g. Landesman v. Whitten), in this case, petitioner sought to properly serve the superintendent of the school district within which the subject parcel lay, but inadvertently served the superintendent of an adjacent school district; in the exercise of its discretion, the Court determined that the instant inadvertent geographical service error mirrored the facts in Harris Bay Yacht Club, Inc. v. Town of Queensbury, et al wherein the 3rd Department affirmed the lower court's finding that good cause existed to excuse the improper service and to allow leave to re-serve the petitions upon the proper school district.]

Jason and Donna Levitz v. The Assessor of the Town of New Castle
Date of Decision: September 10, 2009
[Tax Certiorari]
[Petitioners' motion for summary judgement based on selective reassessment granted; in this case the subject residential property, although subdivided into two zoning lots (one containing a residence and the other only a tennis court) was assessed as a single tax lot at $393,000; at or about the time of the sale of the property to petitioners, the respondent assessor (pursuant to the request of the former owner submitted prior to the 2007 sale) converted the parcel into a two-tax-lot condition, reducing the assessment of the residential lot to $370,000, but raising the assessment of the tennis lot to $160,000 (based upon its now buildable status), thus increasing the total valuation of the properties well in excess of the assessment prior to the split, and occasioning the instant finding of selective reassessment in the valuing of the tennis parcel not for its current improvement, but for its building potential.]

Atlantis Group, LLC v. The Town of Blooming Grove Date of Decision: September 8, 2009
[Tax Certiorari]
[Motion by Town to dismiss petitions for failure to comply with discovery demand (for specified documents) which also contained language requiring a personal appearance by the owner or authorized agent before the BAR and a further advisement that if the owner or agent "... shall willfully neglect or refuse to attend ... such owner ... shall not be entitled to any reduction of the assessment ..." Thereafter, petitioner's counsel responded by delivering some of the requested material or an explanation of the lack of existence of information, accompanied with an offer to supply any additional information that the BAR might require. When neither the petitioner nor counsel appeared at the hearing (later asserted to be based upon law office failure) a letter was sent to petitioner denying any reduction "... because of your willful neglect or refusal to attend this board's hearing ..." The motion was denied. Although the BAR did explicitly find the non-appearance to be willful, the cause of such willful neglect or refusal was not disclosed in the Notice of Determination, nor was any evidence for the basis of such determination contained in the record other than petitioner's explanation for its non-appearance.]

Marianne Shoecraft, v. The Town of North Salem, et al : Date of Decision: August 10, 2009
[Tax Certiorari]
[Motion by respondent Town for an Order dismissing petitions based on lack of standing by petitioner who brought actions in her individual capacity, rather than by filing in the name of AKA Realty Partners, the true owner of the property, denied; cross-motion to amend the petitions to add AKA Realty Partners as additional petitioner granted]

The Commons at Bon Aire Condominium, v. The Town of Ramapo, et al : Date of Decision: August 3, 2009
[Tax Certiorari]
[Motion by respondents for an Order dismissing the several petitions for lack of service on the Superintendent of Schools for the Ramapo Central School District granted in part and denied in part; petitions for tax years 2003 - 2006 dismissed for failure of proper service pursuant to R.P.T.L. §708(3); service of petitions for tax years 2007 and 2008 at the school district's business office, rather than at the Superintendent's personal office, excused for good cause shown]

Cong. Kolel Bnei Brak, Inc., v. Tax Assessor for The Village of Spring Valley, et al:
Date of Decision: July 24, 2009
[Tax Certiorari]
[Motion by petitioner for Summary Judgement challenging the denials by respondent Village of renewal applications for a religious exemption denied; the Court found that although it was conceded that petitioners received Section 8 subsidies, material issues of fact exist as to whether petitioner is profiting from the rental of the instant parcels and regarding the true ownership and charitable use of the subject premises pursuant to Congregation Or Yosef and Shimel decisions]

Leone Properties, LLC v. Town Of Cornwall, et al
Date of Decision: July 13,2009
[Tax Certiorari]
[Petitioner and respondents each requested the Court to reconsider their previously denied motions for summary judgement based upon newly agreed stipulated facts; petitioners motion was granted and respondents' was denied; the Court found that the Town's increased assessment changes to petitioner's property for the tax years in issue was selective since they were made without providing an explanation for the increases and failed to provide details of the methodology utilized by the assessor or that an appropriate comprehensive reassessment plan was in place for all similar properties in the Town]

St. Francis Hospital v. Kathleen Taber, Assessor, Town of Poughkeepsie, et al
Date of Decision: June 25,2009
[Tax Certiorari]
[Petitioner’s motion for summary judgement seeking a partial tax exemption (32% of the subject parcel) pursuant to RTPL §420-a granted. The Court found that the leasing by the hospital of medical office accommodations at the medical office complex to its staff physicians, subject to its control and supervision, was reasonably incident to the non-profit hospital's primary activities.]

Southwinds Retirement Home v. The City of Middletown, et al:
June 9,2009
[Tax Certiorari]
[Post-trial Decision and Order. Petition challenging the revocation of petitioner's real property tax exemption and seeking the renewal of a charitable exemption (pursuant to RPTL §420-a) for several separate uses of two properties, including SUNY Empire College lease and ware house utilization of "Warehouse Property", and adult day care, dining hall lease, and beauty parlor lease of "Retirement Home Property", granted]

G & J Realty v. Village of Spring Valley, et al: May 18, 2009
[Post Trial Eminent Domain Procedure Law (EDPL) Article 5 Decision]
[Valuation of mixed commercial/office property by reconciliation of income capitalization and sales comparison methods, with consideration of the effect of "condemnation blight" and additional indicia of market value including the equalized value of the property for tax assessment purposes.]

Ardsley Country Club v. Assessor of the Town of Greenburg, et al: May 18, 2009
[Tax Certiorari]
[This decision was occasioned by respondents' motions for an order striking certain of petitioners' notes of issue for failure to provide income and expense statements pursuant to 22 NYCRR 202.59 [b] and [d]1, which required such discovery to be provided in a timely manner to the municipalities in connection with the subject "income-producing" property. The issue in the case was whether the instant golf club was an "income-producing property" in accordance with the statute's requirements. The decision ultimately determined that the property was not income-producing and denied respondents' motions, but nevertheless granted leave of the Court to compel production of the requested material by traditional discovery pursuant to CPLR Article 31 and §408.]

Congregation Rabbinical College Of Tartikov, Inc., v. Town of Ramapo, et al: April 15, 2009
[Tax Certiorari]
[Post-trial Decision and Order. Petition seeking the renewal of a religious exemption (pursuant to RPTL §420) for property on which a religious summer camp, operated for the benefit of non-members and non-students of the Congregation (Tartikov), by an unaffiliated for profit contractor (Merokdim), denied]

Legion of Christ v. Town of Mount Pleasant, et al: March 25, 2009
[Tax Certiorari]
[Petitions seeking religious exemption for tax years at issue granted pursuant to RPTL §420-a (1) and §420-a (2)]

Monroe Gelfand v. City of Peekskill, et al: February 27, 2009
[Tax Certiorari]
[Motion by petitioner for an Order enforcing the Consent Order entered with respect to the late penalties collected by the respondent for failure to timely pay taxes due and owing, and, pursuant to the Order, directing a refund of said penalties exceeding the amounts due and owing based on the stipulated over-assessments - granted]

Avalon Properties, et al v. The Assessor of the Town of Clarkstown, et al: January 13, 2009
[Tax Certiorari]
[Where neither party had filed a note of issue for the 2008 filing and Petitioner had not filed an income and expense statement for the year 2008, respondent's motion for an order granting consolidation for trial of the 2008 matter with the matters involving tax years 2003 through and including 2007 granted solely upon the condition that petitioner timely serve and file income and expense statements within 15 days of the instant ORDER and that a Note of Issue be filed at that time or immediately thereafter.]

Central Hudson Gas & Electric Corporation v. Town of Newburgh, et al: December 23, 2008
[Post Trial Article 7 Tax Certiorari decision incorporates a detailed analysis of the valuation of a gas and electric utility company’s properties, including electric transmission lines and pipelines, transfer stations and substations, land values, transmission towers, wood poles, including consideration of the feasibility of “in house” construction by petitioner's employees vs. cost incurred by use of an outside contractor with overhead and profit. The decision also contrasts the different valuation and appraisal methodologies utilized by petitioner and respondents, including analysis of depreciation methodologies, functional obsolescence, and net salvage value, and gives a good summary of the law in this area.]

Consolidated Edison Company of New York v. The Assessor of the Town of Stoney Point,et al: December 1, 2008
[Tax Certiorari]
[Petitioner's motion for an Order directing a refund of the pro rata share of the 1% Town "collection fee" attributed to the over-assessment stipulated in the Consent Judgement granted over respondents' arguments (1) that any recovery is barred by the final judgement which made no provision for such refund and/or (2) if recoverable, may only be awarded by way of an Article 78, and not pursuant to the instant Article 7 proceeding.]

David Weiner and Jennifer Phillips v. The Board of Assessors and/or the Assessor of the Town of Harrison et al : September 16, 2008
[Tax Certiorari]
[Petitioners' motion for partial summary judgement granted solely on the issue of selective reassessment; respondents' cross-motion for summary judgement denied. The Court determined that where original 3,600 square foot house was demolished and removed except for the foundation and portions of two of the original walls, both of which were utilized and expanded in the construction of a new 7,800 square foot home, the work done did not constitute new construction, but rather an improvement to an existing structure. Based on the lack of proof of the existence of a comprehensive municipality-wide reassessment plan, the Court ordered a new assessment, in which the equalized value of the improvements (to be determined by the assessor or at trial if necessary) is to be added to the prior assessment.]

In the Matter of the Application of Ferry Landing, LLC and Westchester Industries, Inc., et al v. The Assessor of the Village Of Tarrytown and The Assessor of the Town of Greenburgh, et al : August 20, 2008
[Post-trial Tax Certiorari RTPL Article 7 decision analyzes the valuation of petitioners' seven contiguous tax lots by the Town and Village, and generally rejects certain analysis of their appraisers for several reasons: (a) with the exception of two parcels, respondents' appraisers, in order to transform seven separate tax lots on which numerous physical improvements and uses had been located during the years in issue into one large parcel of vacant land ready for development, inappropriately valued the remaining 5 parcels "as though vacant and available for development to their highest and best use" instead of on an "as is" basis, recognizing their current income producing condition and use; (b) in order to support their flawed methodology, respondents variously describe the use of the parcels and/or the income generated from parking as "interim", or argue that the parcels are "functionally vacant", or "of little use", or contain buildings which are "unused" or "generate no income", all of which are wholly, or partially factually inaccurate; (c) respondents placed undue emphasis on the fact that the zoning of the subject parcels was changed in 1998 to facilitate residential and other development contemplated by petitioners and that such zoning should be considered along with reasonable development potential in valuing petitioners' underdeveloped land -- even if one were to accept that the parcels were entirely unimproved, despite the change in zoning, it has been conclusively established herein that initial approval for development of the subject parcels (i.e. acceptance of the Final Environmental Impact Statement) occurred only after the period in issue. Finally, the Court undertakes a detailed valuation of the properties utilizing variously the sales comparison and income capitalization methodologies, at times favoring a position of one party or the other (e.g. the Village's sales comparables or petitioner's calculation of the average market price increase), while undertaking a modification of aspects of both parties' analysis, where appropriate, including to adjustments proffered by petitioner, and as to capitalization rates utilized by the parties. Based on the above, the Court ordered reductions in assessed value for each of the tax years by each of the municipalities and appropriate tax refunds, plus interest.]

In the Matter of the Application of BAJ, LP v. The Assessor of the Town of Goshen, et al : June 3, 2008
[Post-trial Tax Certiorari RTPL Article 7 decision analyzes the valuation of Petitioner's mixed residential/commercial parcel by the Town and rejects the analysis of its appraiser for several reasons: (a) Town's appraiser's inappropriate valuation of the property as if it had full approval for all tax years in issue (which was not the case) led to a per housing unit analysis of the residential portion by the Town rather than one based upon acreage, a flawed methodology, since absent final approval, any per unit calculation was speculative at best. As a result, the Court elected to apply adjustments ranging from -10% to -25% based upon the mixed state of approvals during the several years at issue; (b) the decision also rejected the Town's effort to compare two separate groups of properties to the subject, those that were residential only, and those that were commercial and/or industrial only, recognizing that the comparables should have reflected its current status as a mixed use parcel; (c) finally, the Town's failure to consider wetlands restrictions and buffer requirements which devalued the commercial portion of the subject parcel further flawed their analysis.]

State of New York (New York State Board of Real Property Services, et al) v. The Town Of Haverstraw : April 11, 2008
[Tax Certiorari Decision]
[Respondent's motion to dismiss petition, for failure to comply with discovery obligations before the Town BAR pursuant to RPTL § 525 denied, the Court finding that respondent ORPS complied with respect to all information and documents except those relating to assessments outside the Town and wholly unrelated to the subject properties’ assessments, which ORPS declined to provide on grounds of immateriality; that the non-Town information was in fact not material to the BAR proceeding as asserted by ORPS; that it was not improper for ORPS to object to questioning before the BAR by a consultant for the assessor; that the Town in any event waived any defect in this objection by consulting with counsel and apparently electing not to continue with questioning by the consultant; and that dismissal is not appropriate absent proof of willfulness on the part of ORPS, or of a specific finding by the Board of willful refusal by ORPS to comply with discovery obligations, both absent here]

United States Postal Service v. The Assessor,The Board Of Assessors and the Board of Assessment Review of the Town of Bedford, and the Town of Bedford : March 26, 2008
[Tax Certiorari Decision]
[Petitioners' motion to reargue this Court's October 2, 2007 Decision and Order which struck Notes of Issue in each of the pending tax years based upon a failure to timely provide discovery, including income and expense statements in compliance with Rule 202.59 (b) for each of the tax years at issue (1999-2005), and which dismissed petitions relating to tax years 1999, 2000, 2001, and 2002 for failure to file Notes of Issue in a timely manner relating to those years granted; and, upon re-argument, respondents' motion to strike the Notes of Issue and dismiss petitions (over four years old) denied, the Court determining that respondents had, in fact, waived their right to challenge petitioner's income statements by failing to compel or seek either (a) disclosure pursuant to CPLR § 3124 and/or § 3126, and/or (b) an audit pursuant to Court Rule; in addition, Court determined that service upon counsel (rather than the assessor directly) was not inappropriate]

G&T Restaurant Corp. D/B/A/ Coneyz (Claimant) v. The Village of Port Chester (Condemnor) : March 10, 2008
[Post Trial Eminent Domain Procedure Law (EDPL) Article 5 Decision; determination of what constitute non-compensable and compensable trade fixtures of fast food restaurant taken by the Village in Eminent Domain; analysis of appraisal methodology in valuation of trade fixtures; discussion and determination of other factors including depreciation, construction, and financing costs]

In the matter of the Application of the Village of Spring Valley v. N. B. W. Enterprises, LTD. : January 22, 2008
[Post Trial Eminent Domain Procedure Law (EDPL) Article 5 Decision; Valuation of mixed commercial/office property by income capitalization and sales comparison methods, with consideration of the effect of "condemnation blight" and additional indicia of market value including the equalized value of the property for tax assessment purposes and the purchase price plus improvements]

In the matter of the Application of the Village of Dobbs Ferry v. Stanley Avenue Properties, et al : November 8, 2007
[Post Trial Condemnation Decision; Reasonable Probability of Obtaining Approval and Waiver of Local Ordinance Setting Dead End Street Length Restriction; Valuation]

United States Postal Service v. The Assessor,The Board Of Assessors and the Board of Assessment Review of the Town of Bedford and the Town of Bedford : October 2, 2007
[Tax Certiorari Decision]
[Motion by respondent for an Order striking petitioner’s Notes of Issue in each of the pending tax years based upon a failure to timely provide discovery, including income and expense statements for each of the tax years at issue (1999-2005), granted; petitions relating to tax years 1999, 2000, 2001, and 2002 dismissed for failure to file Notes of Issue in a timely manner relating to those years]

The Faith Mission Christian Fellowship Church, Inc. V. The Assessor And The Board Of Assessment Review Of The Town Of Clarkstown : September 25, 2007
[Post Trial Tax Certiorari Decision]
[Petition for an Order granting a religious exemption for the taxable status year 2004 pursuant to RPTL §§ 462 granted]

Joseph Mandel, et al v. The Board of Assessors for the Town of Woodbury, et al : September 5, 2007
[Tax Certiorari]
[Respondents' motion to dismiss Mandel Article 7 claims as untimely granted; respondents' motion to dismiss Mandel Article 78 claims as duplicative denied; petitioners' motion for leave to serve documentary demands, for certain documentary discovery, and for leave to conduct a deposition of the assessor granted]

The Ray River Co. : July 27, 2007
[Condemnation]
[Petitioners' motion for a Writ of Prohibition, barring Condemnor (Village of Haverstraw) from proceeding with its proposed acquisition of certain property and for other requested relief denied]

Legion of Christ, Inc. : July 10, 2007
[Tax Certiorari]
[Petitioner's motion for partial summary judgment seeking renewal of a religious exemption pursuant to RPTL §§ 420-a (1) (a) & 420-a (3) granted]

Old Post Farm Inc. : June 26, 2007
[Tax Certiorari]
[Tax Certiorari Petition not dismissed; Failure to Properly Serve Superintendent of Schools Excused for Good Cause Established by and Derived from the Absence f Prejudice]

Carroll v. City of Rye : March 28, 2007
[Summary Judgement - 945 Forest Avenue - Assessed Value - Newly Created Property]

Central Hudson Gas & Electric : March 2, 2007
[Motion to Strike Valuation of Easements and Rights of Way in Appraisal Report]

Matter of Eastgate Corporate Park v. Assessor of the Town of Goshen, September 30, 2008, __A.D. 3d__, 2008 WL 4427982 ( 2d Dept. 2008 )
[ Notes of Issue Vacated and Petitions Dismissed For Failure to Comply With Filing Requirements of 22 NYCRR 202.59(b) and (d)(1)]

Matter of VGR Associates [ Price Chopper ] : May 6, 2008
__A.D. 3d__, 2008 WL 1989417 ( 2d Dept. 2008 ), aff'g 13 Misc. 3d 1218 ( West. Sup. 2006 )
[ Valuation Of A Shopping Center ]

Matter of JB Park Place Realty : April 1, 2008
__A.D. 3d__, 854 N.Y.S. 2d 547 ( 2d Dept. 2008 ), aff'g 13 Misc. 3d 1233 ( West. Sup. 2006 )
[ Recent Purchase Price In Arm's Length Transaction Best Evidence Of Value ]

Congregation Or Yosef v. Town Of Ramapo : February 8, 2008
48 A.D. 3d 731, 851 N.Y.S. 2d 653 ( 2d Dept. 2008 ), aff'g 13 Misc. 3d 1214 ( West. Sup, 2006 )
[ Tax Exemption [ RPTL 420-a(1)(a),(b) & 462 ] Denied; Failure To Comply With Zoning Code ]

Matter of Adult Home at Erie Station : February 5, 2008
10 N.Y. 3d 205, aff'g 36 A.D. 3d 699, 828 N.Y.S. 2d 459 ( 2d Dept. 2007 ), rev'g 8 Misc. 3d 1010,
( West. Sup. 2005 ).
[ Charitable use exemption ad valuation of not-for-profit adult home ]

Sephardic Congregation of South Monsey v. Town Of Ramapo : January 29, 2008
47 A.D. 3d 915, 849 N.Y.S. 2d 662 ( 2d Dept. 2008 ), rev'g 15 Misc. 3d 274 ( West. Sup. 2007 )
[ Tax Exemption [ RPTL 420-a(1),(a) ] Granted ]

Matter of Johnson v. Kelly, Assessor of the Town of Goshen : November 13, 2007
__A.D. 3d__, 2007 WL 3407746 ( 2d Dept. 2007 ), aff'g 11 Misc. 3d 1081, 816 N.Y.S. 2d 696 ( Orange Sup. 2006 )
[ Partial appraisal of farmland stricken for failing to value total assessment and
proffer substantial evidence that there was valid and credible valuation dispute ]

Matter of Allstate Equities, LLC v. Town of Newburgh : September 18, 2007
__A.D. 3d__, 2007 WL 2729587 ( 2d Dept. 2007 ), rev'g 11 Misc. 3d 1093, 819 N.Y.S. 2d 846 ( Orange Sup. 2006 )
[ Motion to amend notice of petition in order to specify a return date granted ]

Matter of McCready v. Assessor of Town of Ossining : June 26, 2007
41 A.D. 3d 851, 837 N.Y.S. 2d 591 ( 2d Dept. 2007 ), aff'g 11 Misc. 3d 1086, 819 N.Y.S. 2d 849 ( West. Sup. 2006 )
[ Selective Reassessment ]
[ Treatment of recently discovered unassessed property ]

Otrada, Inc. v. Assessor of the Town of Ramapo, : June 19, 2007
41 A.D. 3d 678, 839 N.Y.S. 2d 123 ( 2d Dept. 2007 ), aff'g 9 Misc. 3d 1116, 808 N.Y.S. 2d 919 ( West. Sup. 2005 ), as modified on reargument 11 Misc. 3d 1058, 815 N.Y.S. 2d 495 ( West Sup. 2006 )
[ Tax exemption restored ]

Adult Home At Erie Station, Inc. v. Assessor of City of Middletown : June 16, 2007
36 A.D. 3d 699, 828 N.Y.S. 2d 459 ( 2d Dept. 2007 ), rev'g 8 Misc. 3d 1010, 801 N.Y.S. 2d 776 ( West. Sup. 2005 ), motion for leave to appeal to court of appeals granted 8 N.Y. 3d 814, 838 N.Y.S. 2d 840 ( 2007 ).
[ Charitable use exemption and valuation of not-for-profit adult home ]

Miriam Osborn Memorial Home Association : June 5, 2007
[ Post Trial Tax Certiorari Decision : Part II ]
[ Valuation 1997-2003 ]

Matter of Young v. Town of Bedford : February 20, 2007
37 A.D. 3d 729, 831 N.Y.S. 2d 431 ( 2d Dept. 2007 ), aff'g 4 Misc. 3d 1107, 808 N.Y.S. 2d 921 ( West. Sup. 2005 )
[ Use of current market value to assess newly created property ]

Earla Associates : December 8, 2006
[ Post Trial Tax Certiorari Decision ]
[ Valuation Of Apartment Complex ]

Miriam Osborn Memorial Home Association : December 30, 2006
[ Post Trial Tax Certiorari Decision : Part I ]
[ Denial Of Charitable Use Tax Exemption ]
[ Granting Of Partial Hospital Use Tax Exemption ]

JB Park Place Realty : November 8, 2006
[ Summary Judgment On Valuation Of Commercial Building Granted ]
[ Recent Purchase Price In Arm's Length Transaction Best Evidence Of Value ]

Rockland County Sewer District : October 20, 2006
[ Scope Of Discovery In Eminent Domain & Tax Certiorari Proceedings ]

Village of Spring Valley : October 13, 2006
[ Motion To Strike Prejudicial Material Denied ]
[ Evidence Of Advance Payments Inadmissable At Trial ]

Village Of Irvington : October 11, 2006
[ Post Trial Eminent Domain Decision ]
[ Valuation Of 8,513SF Property Taken In 1998 ]
[ Comparable Sales Methodology ]

Price Chopper Plaza : October 5, 2006
[ Post Trial Tax Certiorari Decision ]
[ Valuation Of A Shopping Center; Rejection Of Half-Box Theory ]

Landesman : October 2, 2006
[ Tax Certiorari Petitions Dismissed ]
[ RPTL §§ 708(3), 718(2)(d) ]

Khal Bais Shmiel : September 29, 2006
[ Request For Tax Exemption [ RPTL § 420(a) ] Denied ]
[ Failure To Produce Credible Evidence To Warrant Exemption ]

Congregation Or Yosef : September 27, 2006
[ Post Trial Tax Exemption [ RPTL § 420(a),(b) & 462 ] Decision ]
[ Request Denied Because Of Lack Of Standing ]
[ Failure To Comply With Zoning Codes ]

Mirant-Bowline : September 18, 2006
[ Resettled Order And Judgment ]
[ Reductions For Each Challenged Tax Identification Number ]

Mirant-Lovett : September 18, 2006
[ Resettled Order And Judgment ]
[ Reductions For Each Challenged Tax Identification Number ]

Mirant-Lovett : August 28, 2006
[ Oil, Gas & Coal Fired Electricity Generating Plant ]
[ Post Trial Valuation Decision Using Cost [ RCNLD ] Approach ]
[ Income [ DCF ] And Sales Comparison Approaches Rejected ]

Mirant-Bowline : August 11, 2006
[ Oil & Gas Fired Electricity Generating Plant ]
[ Post Trial Valuation Decision Using Cost [ RCNLD ] Approach ]
[ Income [ DCF ] And Sales Comparison Approaches Rejected ]

Mirant : June 23, 2006
[ Bankruptcy Court Allows This Court To Decide Tax Certiorari Cases Involving Power Plants ]

Webb : June 16, 2006
[ Failure To Provide Complete Return Date: Jurisdictional Defect ]

Rendano : June 16, 2006
[ Failure To Provide Complete Return Date : Jurisdictional Defect ]

Kaminsky : June 14, 2006
[ new assessment based on improvements made without building permits ]
[ No selective reassessment found; new assessment ordered ]

Jewish Inspiration, Inc. : June 12, 2006
[ tax exemption sought pursuant to RPTL § 420-a ]
[ production & sale of religious lectures on audio cassette and CD ]

Blueberry Hill : May 25, 2006
[ failure to pay refunds within 60 days of order & judgment ]
[ interest awarded pursuant to RPTL § 726(2) ]

AKW Holdings LLC : May 24, 2006
[ Bringing assessed value of properties in line with similar properties in absence of revaluation ]
[ Selective reassessment; new assessment ordered ]

Allstate Equities : May 11, 2006
[ Failure To Provide Complete Return Date: Jurisdictional Defect ]

Redhead Properties : May 10, 2006
[ RPTL § 727(1) Moratorium: Consent Judgment Enforced ]
[ RPTL § 727(2)(a) exception ( revaluation ) not applicable ]
[ RPTL § 727(2)(i) exception ( change in use ) not applicable ]
[ RPTL § 722(2) additional allowances awarded ]

Newburgh Plaza : May 1, 2006
[ Failure To Provide A Return Date: Jurisdictional Defect ]

McCready - April 26, 2006
[ More on selective reassessment ]
[ Treatment of recently discovered unassessed property ]
[ Treatment of basements partially below grade ]

The Johnson Farm - April 17, 2006
[ Partial appraisal of farmland stricken for failure to value total assessment ]
[ Petitions dismissed for failure to comply with RPTL § 502(3) ]

Midway Shopping Center - March 29, 2006
[ Former tenant has no authority or standing to challenge tax assessments ]
[ Failure to comply with requirements of 22 NYCRR §§ 202.59(b),(d)(1) ]

Miriam Osborn Memorial Home Association - March 20, 2006
[ Admissibility of prior appraisals of hotel properties ]

Markim III - March 16, 2006
[ Remedies for selective reassessment: partial assessments valid ]

Miriam Osborn Memorial Home Association - March 3, 2006
[ Admissibility of documents downloaded from governmental websites ]

Otrada II - March 1, 2006
[ Tax exemption restored to 2004 and 2005 ]

MGD Holdings Hav, LLC II - February 21, 2006
[ Selective reassessment; partial assessments ]

Bock - February 14, 2006
[ Assessor's Reassessment Plan Based Upon Cost Of Improvements Fair, Reasonable & Comprehensive ]
[ More on selective reassessment ]

Orange & Rockland Utilities - February 8, 2006
[ tax certiorari petition dismissed; failure to serve superintendent of schools ]

Schlesinger - January 24, 2006
[ taxpayer not required to consent to interior inspection of premises by appraiser ]

Commerce Drive Associates - January 13, 2006
[ tax certiorari petition not dismissed; CPLR § 306-b extension granted ]

275 N. Middletown Road - January 4, 2006
[ tax certiorari petition not dismissed; service adequate; good cause shown ]

Majaars Realty - December 19, 2005
[ tax certiorari petition dismissed; failure to serve superintendent of schools ]

Port Chester Condemnation Proceedings - December 9, 2005
[ abandoned claim dismissed; no basis for attorneys' charging lien ]

Village of Haverstraw - October 24, 2005
[ Eminent Domain revision of advance payment and interest rate ]

Markim II - October 18, 2005
[ More on selective reassessment ]

Otrada - October 3, 2005
[ Tax exemption restored ]

Young - September 14, 2005
[ Initial assessment of newly created property: use of current market value ]
[ More on selective reassessment ]

Rockland Sewer District - September 12, 2005
[ Note of Issue in eminent domain proceeding vacated as violating 22 NYCRR § 202.61(a)(1) which requires exchange of trial appraisals as prerequisite to filing and service of Note of Issue ]

Miriam Osborn Memorial Home Association - August 29, 2005
[ Admissibility of ORPS SalesWeb Data Compilation ]
[ New York State Technology Law § 306 ]

MRE Realty - August 18, 2005
[ RPTL § 727(1) Moratorium: Failure To Timely File ]

Congregation Knesset Israel - August 2, 2005
[ RPTL § 462 : What Are Officiating Clergymen? ]

2 Perlman Drive, LLC - July 18, 2005
[ RPTL § 727(1) Moratorium: Two Exceptions Reviewed ]

D'Onofrio - July 18, 2005
[ Contamination Remediation Costs Excluded In Condemnation Trial ]

MGD Holding Hav, LLC - July 13, 2005
[ A review of the concept of selective reassessment ]
[ Assessors must provide an explanation for changes in assessments ]

Adult Home At Erie Station - July 1, 2005
[ Charitable tax exemption for not-for-profit adult home denied ]
[ Valuation of not-for-profit adult home results in tax refunds ]

Miriam Osborn Memorial Home Association - June 30, 2005
[ Motion to quash subpoena for accountant's work papers granted ]

Falbe - June 20, 2005
[ Order directing Village to pay tax refund vacated for misrepresentation ]

Brodie - June 10, 2005
[ Claim for STAR tax exemption barred by statute of limitations ]

Orange & Rockland Utilities - May 16, 2005
[ Motion to add and substitute parties granted ]

Villemena - May 9, 2005
[ Real property assessment declared void and refund ordered ]
[ Failure to establish and reply upon a comprehensive assessment plan ]

Orange & Rockland Utilities - May 2, 2005
[ Motion to amend petitions to conform to proof of fair market value denied ]
[ Respondent's appraiser's fair market value accepted as admission against interest ]

Nyack Plaza Housing Associates - April 18, 2005
[ A change in class assessment ratios must be made by Legislature ]

Miriam Osborn Memorial Home Association - April 7, 2005
[ Letters from early 1900's admitted into evidence as ancient documents ]

Miriam Osborn Memorial Home Association - April 4, 2005
[ Law Professor not permitted to testify on the meaning of term charitable ]

Markin - March 28, 2006
[ Article 78 appropriate vehicle to challenge method of assessment on equal protection grounds ]

Orange & Rockland Utilities - March 10, 2005
[ discovery of non-party appraisals revisited ]

Miriam Osborn Memorial Home Association - March 10, 2005 "
[ burden of proof on tax exemption issue : the " hospital " exemption ]

Legion of Christ - March 8, 2005
[ motion to stay tax lien enforcement proceedings denied ]
[ pay first, litigate later rule enforced ]

Rose Mount Vernon Corp. - February 22, 2005
[ Appellate Division Second Department Affirms ]
[ failure to comply with 22 NYCRR § 202.59(b),(d)(1) ]

Salvation & Praise - February 10, 2005
[ Bar Claim Action Granted, Article 7 Petition Moot ]
[ 6 Misc. 3d 1021(A), 2005 WL 332409 ( 2005 ) ]

Miriam Osborn Memorial Home Association - February 3, 2005
[ burden of proof on tax exemption and valuation issues ]

American Property Investors - January 19, 2005
[ motion to preclude appraisal premature; application to obtain opponent's appraisal denied ]

Miriam Osborn Memorial Home Association - January 4, 2005
[ Motion To Preclude Evidence Of Resident Health Denied ]
[ 6 Misc. 3d 1011(A), 2005 WL 120792 ( 2005 ) ]

Port Chester Condemnation Proceedings - December 20, 2004
[ advance payments with 6% interest ordered paid into escrow accounts, interest rates for tax refunds and condemnation advance payments distinguished ]
[ 5 Misc. 3d 1031(A), 2004 WL 2952860 ( 2004 ) ]

Congregation Sherith Yisroel - December 14, 2004
[ tax exemption; deposition of tax assessor as quasi judicial officer denied ]
[ 5 Misc. 3d 1027(A), 2004 WL 2903585 ( 2004 ) ]

Matter of Gemilas - December 10, 2004
[ Free Loan Society seeks tax exemption per RPTL § 420(a) ]
[ 5 Misc. 3d 1026(A), 2004 WL 2852658 ( 2004 ) ]

Orange & Rockland Utilities - November 24, 2004
[ discovery remedies, additions and substitutions of parties, aggrieved parties ]

325 Highland LLC - November 23, 2004
[ summary judgment granted with interest on refund; recent arm's length sales transaction best evidence of value; recent real estate listings no evidence of abnormality ]
[ 5 Misc. 3d 1018(A), 2004 WL 2683668 ( 2004 ) ]

Orange & Rockland Utilities - October 21, 2004
[ discovery of non-party appraisals pursuant to CPLR § 3140 and 22 NYCRR § 202.59(g)(1) ]
[ 5 Misc. 3d 1010(A), 2004 WL 2472472 ( 2004 ) ]

Bank of New York - July 28, 2004
[ replacement cost method; motion for mistrial granted ]
[ 4 Misc. 3d 1014(A), 2004 WL 1829467 ( 2004 ) ]

Miriam Osborn Memorial Home Association -July 22, 2004
[ scope of appraisal audit pursuant to 22 NYCRR § 202.59(c) ]
[4 Misc. 3d 1009(A), 2004 WL 1656500 ( 2004 ) ]

Orange & Rockland Utilities - July 2, 2004
[ petition challenging 1996 real property tax assessment of the Bowline Electric Generating Facility in Rockland County dismissed for failing to timely file a Note of Issue pursuant to Real Property Tax Law § 718 ]
[ 4 Misc. 3d 1005(A), 2004 WL 1609183 ( 2004 ) ]

Matter Of Jamil - June 23, 2004
[ land use; assisted living facility comes to Village of Scarsdale ]
[ 4 Misc. 3d 642, 718 N.Y.S. 2d 670 ( 2004 ) ]

Reckson Operating - March 19, 2004
[ valuation of commercial property using income-capitalization or income stream approach ]
[ 2 Misc. 3d 1005(A), 2004 WL 556580 ( 2004 ) ]

SKM Enterprises, Inc. - March 12, 2004
[ 1996 appraisal submitted in 1997 tax assessment review proceeding dismissed as failing to reflect the proper valuation date of January 1, 1997 or the correct taxable status date of March 1, 1997 as required by R.P.T.L. § 301 and 22 NYCRR § 202.59(h) ]
[ 2 Misc. 3d 1004(A), 2004 WL 503485 ( 2004 ) ]

Nextel of New York, Inc. - February 2, 2004
[ telecommunications equipment on cell tower taxable as real property pursuant to R.P.T.L. § 102(12)(I) or as common law fixtures ]
[ 4 Misc. 3d 233,, 771 N.Y.S. 2d 853 ( 2004 ) ]

Rose Mount Vernon Corp. - December 29, 2003
[ tax assessment review proceedings dismissed for failure to comply with requirements for the filing and service of income and expenses statements pursuant to 22 NYCRR § 202.59 (b), (d), (d)(1) ]
[ 1 Misc. 3d 906(A), 2003 WL 23112013 ( 2003 ) ]