Preview
FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 09/12/2017 04:12 PM INDEX NO. 250370/2017
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 1 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 09/12/2017
SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK
COUNTY OF New York
In the Matter of
Borough of: Manhattan
30 Sutton Place Corporation
Taxes of 2017 - 2018
Petitioner,
against
THE TAX COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF NEW YORK AND THE
COMMISSIONER OF FINANCE OF THE CITY OF NEW YORK,
Respondents
BLOCK LOT ADDRESS
1370 21 30 Sutton Place, New York
TO THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK:
The Petitioner above named respectfully shows and alleges as follows:
1. At all times hereinafter mentioned, the petitioner was and still is Owner of certain real property in the
City of New York, which real property is described in Schedule A hereto annexed and made part of hereof, by
block and lot number and Borough by which the said real property was designated on the tax maps of the
City of New York for the fiscal year July 1, 2017 to June 30, 2018.
2. During the time provided for by law, one of the assessors of the Real Property Assessment Bureau of
the City of New York, an agency under the jurisdiction of the Commissioner of Finance, in accordance with
law, did assess the said real property described in Schedule A and caused the assessed valuations to be
entered in detail in the books kept in the office of said Real Property Assessment Bureau as shown in
Schedule A.
3. Between January 15, 2017 and March 1, 2017, the time that said books were open for public
inspection, or such further period as provided by law, petitioner, claiming to be aggrieved by said assessed
valuation of said real property, duly made application in writing under oath to the Tax Commission of the City
of New York, as provided by law to have such assessments corrected, said Tax Commission having been duly
Page 1 of 6
FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 09/12/2017 04:12 PM INDEX NO. 250370/2017
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 1 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 09/12/2017
constituted by law, to review and correct all assessments of real property for taxation in the City of New York.
In said application, petitioner claimed that the assessments were erroneous in that the assessments were
excessive (by reason of overvaluation), misclassified, unequal (by reason of inequality), and unlawful(by
reason of illegality) and demanded appropriate relief.
4. Thereafter, on or about May 25, 2017, the Tax Commission duly rendered a final determination on
said application, and the assessments were confirmed as final in the amounts shown in Schedule A hereof.
5. Thereafter, the assessment rolls of the real property subject to taxation in the City of New York for the
fiscal year July 1, 2017 to June 30, 2018 were prepared, certified and delivered to the City Council of the City
of New York in accordance with law, which assessment rolls contained the said assessments upon petitioner's
said real property as shown in Schedule A and the City Council proceeded thereon for the levying and
collection of taxes.
6. The said assessments are excessive in that (a) the assessed valuation exceeds the full value of the
real property. The sum for which the said real property would sell under ordinary circumstances on the
statutory taxable status date is shown as the claimed value in Column "5" of Schedule A. The extent of over-
valuation is the actual total assessment specified for each tax lot (Column "4"), less the claimed correct full
value specified for each tax lot as set forth in Column "5" of Schedule A; (b) the taxable assessed value fails
to comply with the limitations of increases in assessed value set forth in Real Property Tax Law Section 1805;
(c) said real property failed to receive all or a portion of an exemption to which said real property or the
owner thereof is entitled pursuant to the law authorizing the exemption; and (d) the assessments are
excessive in that the property failed to receive a land only "progress assessment" as a building in the course
of construction pursuant to Administrative Code Section 11-209.
7. Where the subject property is fully or partially exempt from taxation under RPTL Section 489 and the
Administrative Code of the City of New York, Section 11-243, the assessment has been unlawfully increased
in excess of the assessment of the previous existing dwelling appearing on the assessment rolls after the
taxable status date immediately preceding the commencement of the alteration and improvements plus the
value of the land and any improvements, other than those made under the provisions of RPTL Section 489
and Administrative Code Section 11-243.
8. The said assessments are erroneous by reason of inequality and are unequal in that they have been
made at a higher proportionate valuation than the assessed valuations of (a) other real property on the
assessment rolls of the City for the same year, and/or (b) other real property within the same class on the
same roll by the same officer. The extent of such inequality and the extent to which said assessments are
Page 2 of 6
FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 09/12/2017 04:12 PM INDEX NO. 250370/2017
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 1 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 09/12/2017
unequal is equal to the difference between the actual total assessed value as set forth in Schedule A and
15% of the amount specified as the claimed value for each unit set forth in Schedule A.
9. RPTL Section 720(3) is unlawful, improper and unconstitutional in that it improperly limits the scope
of evidence to be adduced by petitioner.
10. The assessments are illegal and unlawful in that they were made contrary to law.
11. The assessments are illegal and unlawful in that the property should have been wholly exempt from
taxation.
12. Where a notice increasing the assessments of the subject property was sent during or subsequent
to the time the books of the annual record of assessed valuation remained open for public inspection, the
notice purporting to increase the assessments is unlawful, improper, defective and void in that it fails to
comply with New York City Charter Section 1512 and Administrative Code Section 11-211; Charter Section
1512 is unlawful, improper and unconstitutional in that it discriminates in favor of residential versus
commercial property and fails to provide adequate notice of an increased assessment, and unconstitutionally
vague in that it fails to adequately define what is meant by residential real estate.
13. At all times herein relevant, the Constitution of the State of New York, Article 8, Section 10, provides
that real estate tax revenues of the City of New York in any fiscal year, exclusive of debt service
requirements, shall not exceed 2-1/2% of the average full value of its taxable real estate for the latest five
fiscal years. That by discriminating between types of properties, respondents have reduced the value of
"taxable" real estate so that the tax rate exceeds the constitutional limitations by reason of their having
effectively granted exemptions from taxation to certain premises.
14. Where petitioner's property is a cooperative or condominium, the assessment has been made
contrary to RPTL Section 581 and/or RPL Sec. 339-y.
15. These assessments and all of the assessments on the assessment rolls of the City of New York are
illegal and unlawful in that Section 305(2) of the Real Property Tax law requires that all real property in each
assessing unit shall be assessed at a uniform percentage of value and that the assessments on said roll are
not assessed at such uniform percentage.
16. Where the assessment of the subject parcel has been set based on 45% of gross sales price, the
assessment is unlawful in that parcels whose assessment is based on 45% of gross sales price constitute an
unlawful and separate class of real property which is not assessed at a uniform percentage of value required
by RPTL Section 305(2) and which class is not authorized by RPTL Section 1802 or the New York State and
United States Constitutions.
Page 3 of 6
FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 09/12/2017 04:12 PM INDEX NO. 250370/2017
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 1 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 09/12/2017
17. The assessments are illegal and unlawful in that respondents have wrongfully denied a hearing to
correct the assessment in question pursuant to Administrative Code, Section 11-208.1 that is
unconstitutional, on its face and as applied herein.
18. Petitioner's property has been misclassified as being in class two, three or four instead of the
appropriate class for petitioner's property; the class designation of petitioner's parcel results in an incorrect
allocation of the parcel's assessed valuation between two or more classes; the criteria used by respondents
for determination of tax class is arbitrary, capricious and unlawful.
19. The denial of the full and appropriate amount of exemption under RPTL Section 421-A or any
applicable statute granting exemption to the subject property is arbitrary, capricious, contrary to law and
makes the assessment unequal, unlawful and excessive.
20. By reason of the aforesaid excessive, unequal, erroneous, unlawful and illegal assessments,
petitioner has been aggrieved and will be injured thereby, and will be compelled to pay more than its proper
share of the taxes of the City of New York.
21. Reference herein to "petitioner" shall be deemed to include the petitioner named herein and all of
said petitioner's predecessors in interest.
22. The property's transition assessments are excessive in that they have been (a) calculated in a
manner inconsistent with the provisions of Real Property Tax Law, and/or (b) calculated in a manner
inconsistent with the transitional assessment calculation for other properties in the City of New York.
23. No previous application has been made for the relief herein sought to this or any other Court or
Judge.
WHEREFORE, your petitioner prays that the Supreme Court review and correct on the merits the
aforementioned final determination of the Tax Commission on the grounds set forth in this petition, and that
the Court take evidence to enable your petitioner to show the unjust, erroneous, illegal, unlawful, excessive
and unequal assessments of said real property and its misclassification to the end that the said assessments
may be reduced to the sum for which the said property would sell under ordinary circumstances for land and
improvements, and to a valuation proportionate to the assessments of other real property assessed on the
same rolls and/or other real property of the same class assessed on the same rolls, for the same year, so that
equality of assessments will result, and that all properties shall be assessed at a uniform percentage so that
said assessments will not be unequal, and that equality of assessments will result, and so that the
assessments not be contrary to law, and so that any excessive transition assessments for current and
Page 4 of 6
FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 09/12/2017 04:12 PM INDEX NO. 250370/2017
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 1 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 09/12/2017
subsequent tax years be reduced in accordance with law, and for such other and further relief as the Court
may deem proper, together with costs.
Page 5 of 6
FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 09/12/2017 04:12 PM INDEX NO. 250370/2017
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 1 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 09/12/2017
BOROUGH : Manhattan
PETITIONER : 30 Sutton Place Corporation
Schedule A
For the period commencing July 1, 2017 ending June 30, 2018
1 2 3 4 5
Assessment Assessment Claimed Value of
Block Lot Land Land&Improvements Land&Improvements
1370 21 2700000 12481650 6241000
Dated, New York, N.Y. 2017
Petitioner
30 Sutton Place Corporation
Brandt, Steinberg, Lewis & Blond LLP
1430 Broadway, Suite 601
New York, NY 10018
x
Janice Negrin
State of New York County of New York
Janice Negrin, being duly sworn deposes and says:
That deponent is Assistant Secretary of the petitioner herein; that deponent has read and knows
the contents of the foregoing petition; that the same is true of deponent's own knowledge,
except as to matters stated therein to be alleged on information and belief, and as to those
matters deponent believes it to be true.
Sworn to before me this x
day of , 2017 Janice Negrin
NOTARY SIGNS x
Notary Public or Commissioner of Deeds
Page 6 of 6
Preview
FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 09/12/2017 04:12 PM INDEX NO. 250370/2017 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 1 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 09/12/2017 SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK COUNTY OF New York In the Matter of Borough of: Manhattan 30 Sutton Place Corporation Taxes of 2017 - 2018 Petitioner, against THE TAX COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF NEW YORK AND THE COMMISSIONER OF FINANCE OF THE CITY OF NEW YORK, Respondents BLOCK LOT ADDRESS 1370 21 30 Sutton Place, New York TO THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK: The Petitioner above named respectfully shows and alleges as follows: 1. At all times hereinafter mentioned, the petitioner was and still is Owner of certain real property in the City of New York, which real property is described in Schedule A hereto annexed and made part of hereof, by block and lot number and Borough by which the said real property was designated on the tax maps of the City of New York for the fiscal year July 1, 2017 to June 30, 2018. 2. During the time provided for by law, one of the assessors of the Real Property Assessment Bureau of the City of New York, an agency under the jurisdiction of the Commissioner of Finance, in accordance with law, did assess the said real property described in Schedule A and caused the assessed valuations to be entered in detail in the books kept in the office of said Real Property Assessment Bureau as shown in Schedule A. 3. Between January 15, 2017 and March 1, 2017, the time that said books were open for public inspection, or such further period as provided by law, petitioner, claiming to be aggrieved by said assessed valuation of said real property, duly made application in writing under oath to the Tax Commission of the City of New York, as provided by law to have such assessments corrected, said Tax Commission having been duly Page 1 of 6 FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 09/12/2017 04:12 PM INDEX NO. 250370/2017 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 1 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 09/12/2017 constituted by law, to review and correct all assessments of real property for taxation in the City of New York. In said application, petitioner claimed that the assessments were erroneous in that the assessments were excessive (by reason of overvaluation), misclassified, unequal (by reason of inequality), and unlawful(by reason of illegality) and demanded appropriate relief. 4. Thereafter, on or about May 25, 2017, the Tax Commission duly rendered a final determination on said application, and the assessments were confirmed as final in the amounts shown in Schedule A hereof. 5. Thereafter, the assessment rolls of the real property subject to taxation in the City of New York for the fiscal year July 1, 2017 to June 30, 2018 were prepared, certified and delivered to the City Council of the City of New York in accordance with law, which assessment rolls contained the said assessments upon petitioner's said real property as shown in Schedule A and the City Council proceeded thereon for the levying and collection of taxes. 6. The said assessments are excessive in that (a) the assessed valuation exceeds the full value of the real property. The sum for which the said real property would sell under ordinary circumstances on the statutory taxable status date is shown as the claimed value in Column "5" of Schedule A. The extent of over- valuation is the actual total assessment specified for each tax lot (Column "4"), less the claimed correct full value specified for each tax lot as set forth in Column "5" of Schedule A; (b) the taxable assessed value fails to comply with the limitations of increases in assessed value set forth in Real Property Tax Law Section 1805; (c) said real property failed to receive all or a portion of an exemption to which said real property or the owner thereof is entitled pursuant to the law authorizing the exemption; and (d) the assessments are excessive in that the property failed to receive a land only "progress assessment" as a building in the course of construction pursuant to Administrative Code Section 11-209. 7. Where the subject property is fully or partially exempt from taxation under RPTL Section 489 and the Administrative Code of the City of New York, Section 11-243, the assessment has been unlawfully increased in excess of the assessment of the previous existing dwelling appearing on the assessment rolls after the taxable status date immediately preceding the commencement of the alteration and improvements plus the value of the land and any improvements, other than those made under the provisions of RPTL Section 489 and Administrative Code Section 11-243. 8. The said assessments are erroneous by reason of inequality and are unequal in that they have been made at a higher proportionate valuation than the assessed valuations of (a) other real property on the assessment rolls of the City for the same year, and/or (b) other real property within the same class on the same roll by the same officer. The extent of such inequality and the extent to which said assessments are Page 2 of 6 FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 09/12/2017 04:12 PM INDEX NO. 250370/2017 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 1 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 09/12/2017 unequal is equal to the difference between the actual total assessed value as set forth in Schedule A and 15% of the amount specified as the claimed value for each unit set forth in Schedule A. 9. RPTL Section 720(3) is unlawful, improper and unconstitutional in that it improperly limits the scope of evidence to be adduced by petitioner. 10. The assessments are illegal and unlawful in that they were made contrary to law. 11. The assessments are illegal and unlawful in that the property should have been wholly exempt from taxation. 12. Where a notice increasing the assessments of the subject property was sent during or subsequent to the time the books of the annual record of assessed valuation remained open for public inspection, the notice purporting to increase the assessments is unlawful, improper, defective and void in that it fails to comply with New York City Charter Section 1512 and Administrative Code Section 11-211; Charter Section 1512 is unlawful, improper and unconstitutional in that it discriminates in favor of residential versus commercial property and fails to provide adequate notice of an increased assessment, and unconstitutionally vague in that it fails to adequately define what is meant by residential real estate. 13. At all times herein relevant, the Constitution of the State of New York, Article 8, Section 10, provides that real estate tax revenues of the City of New York in any fiscal year, exclusive of debt service requirements, shall not exceed 2-1/2% of the average full value of its taxable real estate for the latest five fiscal years. That by discriminating between types of properties, respondents have reduced the value of "taxable" real estate so that the tax rate exceeds the constitutional limitations by reason of their having effectively granted exemptions from taxation to certain premises. 14. Where petitioner's property is a cooperative or condominium, the assessment has been made contrary to RPTL Section 581 and/or RPL Sec. 339-y. 15. These assessments and all of the assessments on the assessment rolls of the City of New York are illegal and unlawful in that Section 305(2) of the Real Property Tax law requires that all real property in each assessing unit shall be assessed at a uniform percentage of value and that the assessments on said roll are not assessed at such uniform percentage. 16. Where the assessment of the subject parcel has been set based on 45% of gross sales price, the assessment is unlawful in that parcels whose assessment is based on 45% of gross sales price constitute an unlawful and separate class of real property which is not assessed at a uniform percentage of value required by RPTL Section 305(2) and which class is not authorized by RPTL Section 1802 or the New York State and United States Constitutions. Page 3 of 6 FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 09/12/2017 04:12 PM INDEX NO. 250370/2017 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 1 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 09/12/2017 17. The assessments are illegal and unlawful in that respondents have wrongfully denied a hearing to correct the assessment in question pursuant to Administrative Code, Section 11-208.1 that is unconstitutional, on its face and as applied herein. 18. Petitioner's property has been misclassified as being in class two, three or four instead of the appropriate class for petitioner's property; the class designation of petitioner's parcel results in an incorrect allocation of the parcel's assessed valuation between two or more classes; the criteria used by respondents for determination of tax class is arbitrary, capricious and unlawful. 19. The denial of the full and appropriate amount of exemption under RPTL Section 421-A or any applicable statute granting exemption to the subject property is arbitrary, capricious, contrary to law and makes the assessment unequal, unlawful and excessive. 20. By reason of the aforesaid excessive, unequal, erroneous, unlawful and illegal assessments, petitioner has been aggrieved and will be injured thereby, and will be compelled to pay more than its proper share of the taxes of the City of New York. 21. Reference herein to "petitioner" shall be deemed to include the petitioner named herein and all of said petitioner's predecessors in interest. 22. The property's transition assessments are excessive in that they have been (a) calculated in a manner inconsistent with the provisions of Real Property Tax Law, and/or (b) calculated in a manner inconsistent with the transitional assessment calculation for other properties in the City of New York. 23. No previous application has been made for the relief herein sought to this or any other Court or Judge. WHEREFORE, your petitioner prays that the Supreme Court review and correct on the merits the aforementioned final determination of the Tax Commission on the grounds set forth in this petition, and that the Court take evidence to enable your petitioner to show the unjust, erroneous, illegal, unlawful, excessive and unequal assessments of said real property and its misclassification to the end that the said assessments may be reduced to the sum for which the said property would sell under ordinary circumstances for land and improvements, and to a valuation proportionate to the assessments of other real property assessed on the same rolls and/or other real property of the same class assessed on the same rolls, for the same year, so that equality of assessments will result, and that all properties shall be assessed at a uniform percentage so that said assessments will not be unequal, and that equality of assessments will result, and so that the assessments not be contrary to law, and so that any excessive transition assessments for current and Page 4 of 6 FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 09/12/2017 04:12 PM INDEX NO. 250370/2017 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 1 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 09/12/2017 subsequent tax years be reduced in accordance with law, and for such other and further relief as the Court may deem proper, together with costs. Page 5 of 6 FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 09/12/2017 04:12 PM INDEX NO. 250370/2017 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 1 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 09/12/2017 BOROUGH : Manhattan PETITIONER : 30 Sutton Place Corporation Schedule A For the period commencing July 1, 2017 ending June 30, 2018 1 2 3 4 5 Assessment Assessment Claimed Value of Block Lot Land Land&Improvements Land&Improvements 1370 21 2700000 12481650 6241000 Dated, New York, N.Y. 2017 Petitioner 30 Sutton Place Corporation Brandt, Steinberg, Lewis & Blond LLP 1430 Broadway, Suite 601 New York, NY 10018 x Janice Negrin State of New York County of New York Janice Negrin, being duly sworn deposes and says: That deponent is Assistant Secretary of the petitioner herein; that deponent has read and knows the contents of the foregoing petition; that the same is true of deponent's own knowledge, except as to matters stated therein to be alleged on information and belief, and as to those matters deponent believes it to be true. Sworn to before me this x day of , 2017 Janice Negrin NOTARY SIGNS x Notary Public or Commissioner of Deeds Page 6 of 6