Preview
FILED: NASSAU COUNTY CLERK 06/24/2024 04:47 PM INDEX NO. 611054/2024
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 8 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 06/24/2024
SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK
COUNTY OF NASSAU
---------------------------------------------------------------------X Index No. ______________
In the Matter of the Application of
STEVEN MASHAAL,
Petitioner, AFFIRMATION IN
SUPPORT OF THE
- against - VERIFIED PETITION
THE DEPARTMENT OF ASSESSMENT OF THE
COUNTY OF NASSAU and THE COUNTY OF
NASSAU,
Respondents.
--------------------------------------------------------------------X
STATE OF NEW YORK )
:ss.:
COUNTY OF NASSAU )
JOHN M. WATCH, duly affirms the following in accordance with CPLR Rule 2106:
1. I am a licensed general certified New York State real estate appraiser and have been
since New York State commenced issuing such licenses in 1991. I have over forty years of
appraisal experience. I have completed reassessment projects for multiple townships in New
York State since 2001, as well as the valuation of commercial and residential properties for
financial institutions, private investors and law firms throughout my career.
2. I submit this Affirmation in further support of the Verified Petition herein.
3. I attended and provided assistance regarding the Petitioner’s SCAR hearing for 165
Poplar Drive, Roslyn, New York 11576 (Section 7 Block 299 Lot 11) for the 2023/24 tax year.
The purpose of my assistance was to, inter alia, address the issue of different gross living areas
used by the County Assessment Office.
4. When I completed reassessment projects, we collected information relating to finished
basements because there was an impact on value. The valuation models prepared for my
company were completed by James R. Thimgan. Mr. Thimgan was the same valuation modeler
used by Standard Valuation Services (SVS) when the reassessment for the 2020/21 assessment
roll of Nassau County was completed. Multiple Regression Analysis (MRA) was used to
establish statistically supported valuation coefficients.
1 of 4
FILED: NASSAU COUNTY CLERK 06/24/2024 04:47 PM INDEX NO. 611054/2024
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 8 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 06/24/2024
5. When I completed reassessment projects from 2001 to 2007 the results of the MRA
were presented in a format that would permit the property owner to understand how the value
was generated. The format was similar to the URAR form used to value homes for financial
institutions. In the case of Nassau County, these reports are referred to as LADDER reports. As
I indicated previously, the factors used to determine the market value estimate are presented in a
manner that permits the owner to see how the value is developed.
6. A sample Ladder report with finished basement area is presented below. The yellow
highlighted rows show the increase in value added because of the finished basement and finished
rec room areas. There is a $31,106.60 increase in value added for 475 square feet ($65.49 per
square foot) and a $50,305.75 increase for 1,032 square feet of finished space ($48.75 per square
foot). This valuation model does indicate there is a difference between finished basement and
recreational space, but most significant is that the adjustment is not based on the base amount at
$221.56 per square foot.
The following calculation Ladder demonstrates the market derived componentsof value that make up this subject property value.
Adjustment Calculation Ladder
Parcel ID # 07135 00030
Estimation Model Market 1 2021
Predicted Value $1,380,796 Override Value N/A
Group Name
PROPERTY
CHARACTERISTICS ADJUSTMENT
(Factor) VALUE(dollars)
Uving Area 3503.00 O.0000 1,005,00D.13
Size Ad ustment ( 2200 ) 0.7723 776,130.41
Basement 475.00 10401 807,237.01
Rec Room 1032.00 1.0623 857,542.76
Year Built Depreciation 1948-94.92 O.9492 813,998.25
Style Cape O.9894 805,397.84
Use Code One Family 1.0D00 805,397.84
Quality B- 1.0196 821,194.66
Cdu Good 1.000D 821,194.66
Bathrooms And Fixtures 4-2-18 1.3053 1,071,938.23
Fireplace O2.00 1.0133 1,086,148.60
Ext Wall Frame 1.0000 1,086,148.60
Heat System Central AC 1.0000 1,086,148.60
Land Size 10200,00 O.9111 989,550.76
Parking Att-400 1.0244 1,013,745.10
Patio 657.00 1.0177 1,031,710.22
Porch 00.00 1.0000 1,031,710.22
WoodDeck 00.00 1.0000 1,031,710.22
Pool 00.00 1.0000 1,031,710.22
Living Area Bldp2 00.00 1.0000 1,031,710.22
Water Attribute 00.00 1.0000 1,031,710.22
Location 00.00 1.0D00 1,031,710.22
Fronting ResidentialStreet 1.0000 1,031,710.22
Traffic Light 1.0000 1,031,710.22
School District ROS 1.0000 1,031,710.22
Tax District 805.00 1.0000 1,031,710.22
Neighborhood Roslyn-234 1.3216 1,363,543.53
Subarea Adjustment 00.00 1.0000 1,363,543.53
2 of 4
FILED: NASSAU COUNTY CLERK 06/24/2024 04:47 PM INDEX NO. 611054/2024
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 8 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 06/24/2024
7. The ladder diagram clearly shows how the value increases or decreases for the
property, based upon specific factors which exist for all properties in the reassessment project.
The price per square foot for the finished basement area should not have been afforded the full
weight that the Nassau County Representative used during the SCAR proceeding. During the
SCAR proceeding, I was asked multiple times to explain this issue. I explained that the value of
the additional basement living area cannot count the existing foundation, ceiling beams, concrete
flooring, electrical and water because these items already existed for the above grade
improvements. I stated that the value of the finishes, such as sheetrock, flooring, lighting fixtures,
new plumbing fixtures and glass doors can and should be considered.
8. Nassau County’s evidence stated the gross living area (GLA), without clearly
identifying the 1,007 square feet of finished basement GLA. This, in my opinion, was
misleading and confused the hearing officer. If the hearing officer did not understand this aspect
of the argument, she should have requested additional information.
9. Valuation concepts are difficult to explain to individuals who have limited training
and knowledge of such factors. Appraisers, on the other hand, have extensive knowledge and
experience. Appraisers would recognize the difference between above grade and below grade
space, applying appropriate adjustments. The standard URAR residential appraisal form has a
specific line for basement, if finished and the amount of space. The County did not offer this,
and despite our objections, the hearing officer disregarded this key factor. Appraisals may vary,
but the process to establish the value does not.
10. I am of the opinion that the hearing officer’s inability to understand the issue related
to above grade finished gross living area resulted in her completely disregarding the Petitioner’s
CMA, which is arbitrary and capricious and due to lack of proper or sufficient training in
property valuation. She does not indicate that there is a difference between the areas and fails to
address the issue relating to a difference in values. The CMA submitted by the County does not
separate the GLA into components. Without a separate factor for basement the value assumes the
space is 100% above grade. The CMA for the Petitioner clearly has basement area and there is a
3 of 4
..
FILED: NASSAU COUNTY CLERK 06/24/2024 04:47 PM INDEX NO. 611054/2024
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 8 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 06/24/2024
specific line allocated for this at $125,000 to each sale. The hearing officer clearly disregarded
this, which is arbitrary and capricious.
11. Finally, it is very clear from the Ladder report that adjustments are considered and
applied to value based upon the age of the dwelling. All other factors home
being equal, a newer
will be more valuable than an older home. This is reflected in the County's valuation model
under "Year Built
Depreciation."
Additionally, this process is consistent with best appraisal
practices performed in the marketplace.
12. Notwithstanding the foregoing, the hearing officer failed to recognize that the two (2)
compamble sales she utilized for her determination were new construction which would warrant
a downward adjustment when compared to the subject. This too, was arbitrary and capricious.
I affirm this 24th day of June2024, under the
penalties of perjury unde · e laws of NewYork,
which may include a e or imprisonment, that the
foregoing is , an I understand that tlyis
document ed in an act ón pr ding in
a court
MHNM. W TCH
P
4 of 4
Preview
FILED: NASSAU COUNTY CLERK 06/24/2024 04:47 PM INDEX NO. 611054/2024 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 8 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 06/24/2024 SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK COUNTY OF NASSAU ---------------------------------------------------------------------X Index No. ______________ In the Matter of the Application of STEVEN MASHAAL, Petitioner, AFFIRMATION IN SUPPORT OF THE - against - VERIFIED PETITION THE DEPARTMENT OF ASSESSMENT OF THE COUNTY OF NASSAU and THE COUNTY OF NASSAU, Respondents. --------------------------------------------------------------------X STATE OF NEW YORK ) :ss.: COUNTY OF NASSAU ) JOHN M. WATCH, duly affirms the following in accordance with CPLR Rule 2106: 1. I am a licensed general certified New York State real estate appraiser and have been since New York State commenced issuing such licenses in 1991. I have over forty years of appraisal experience. I have completed reassessment projects for multiple townships in New York State since 2001, as well as the valuation of commercial and residential properties for financial institutions, private investors and law firms throughout my career. 2. I submit this Affirmation in further support of the Verified Petition herein. 3. I attended and provided assistance regarding the Petitioner’s SCAR hearing for 165 Poplar Drive, Roslyn, New York 11576 (Section 7 Block 299 Lot 11) for the 2023/24 tax year. The purpose of my assistance was to, inter alia, address the issue of different gross living areas used by the County Assessment Office. 4. When I completed reassessment projects, we collected information relating to finished basements because there was an impact on value. The valuation models prepared for my company were completed by James R. Thimgan. Mr. Thimgan was the same valuation modeler used by Standard Valuation Services (SVS) when the reassessment for the 2020/21 assessment roll of Nassau County was completed. Multiple Regression Analysis (MRA) was used to establish statistically supported valuation coefficients. 1 of 4 FILED: NASSAU COUNTY CLERK 06/24/2024 04:47 PM INDEX NO. 611054/2024 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 8 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 06/24/2024 5. When I completed reassessment projects from 2001 to 2007 the results of the MRA were presented in a format that would permit the property owner to understand how the value was generated. The format was similar to the URAR form used to value homes for financial institutions. In the case of Nassau County, these reports are referred to as LADDER reports. As I indicated previously, the factors used to determine the market value estimate are presented in a manner that permits the owner to see how the value is developed. 6. A sample Ladder report with finished basement area is presented below. The yellow highlighted rows show the increase in value added because of the finished basement and finished rec room areas. There is a $31,106.60 increase in value added for 475 square feet ($65.49 per square foot) and a $50,305.75 increase for 1,032 square feet of finished space ($48.75 per square foot). This valuation model does indicate there is a difference between finished basement and recreational space, but most significant is that the adjustment is not based on the base amount at $221.56 per square foot. The following calculation Ladder demonstrates the market derived componentsof value that make up this subject property value. Adjustment Calculation Ladder Parcel ID # 07135 00030 Estimation Model Market 1 2021 Predicted Value $1,380,796 Override Value N/A Group Name PROPERTY CHARACTERISTICS ADJUSTMENT (Factor) VALUE(dollars) Uving Area 3503.00 O.0000 1,005,00D.13 Size Ad ustment ( 2200 ) 0.7723 776,130.41 Basement 475.00 10401 807,237.01 Rec Room 1032.00 1.0623 857,542.76 Year Built Depreciation 1948-94.92 O.9492 813,998.25 Style Cape O.9894 805,397.84 Use Code One Family 1.0D00 805,397.84 Quality B- 1.0196 821,194.66 Cdu Good 1.000D 821,194.66 Bathrooms And Fixtures 4-2-18 1.3053 1,071,938.23 Fireplace O2.00 1.0133 1,086,148.60 Ext Wall Frame 1.0000 1,086,148.60 Heat System Central AC 1.0000 1,086,148.60 Land Size 10200,00 O.9111 989,550.76 Parking Att-400 1.0244 1,013,745.10 Patio 657.00 1.0177 1,031,710.22 Porch 00.00 1.0000 1,031,710.22 WoodDeck 00.00 1.0000 1,031,710.22 Pool 00.00 1.0000 1,031,710.22 Living Area Bldp2 00.00 1.0000 1,031,710.22 Water Attribute 00.00 1.0000 1,031,710.22 Location 00.00 1.0D00 1,031,710.22 Fronting ResidentialStreet 1.0000 1,031,710.22 Traffic Light 1.0000 1,031,710.22 School District ROS 1.0000 1,031,710.22 Tax District 805.00 1.0000 1,031,710.22 Neighborhood Roslyn-234 1.3216 1,363,543.53 Subarea Adjustment 00.00 1.0000 1,363,543.53 2 of 4 FILED: NASSAU COUNTY CLERK 06/24/2024 04:47 PM INDEX NO. 611054/2024 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 8 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 06/24/2024 7. The ladder diagram clearly shows how the value increases or decreases for the property, based upon specific factors which exist for all properties in the reassessment project. The price per square foot for the finished basement area should not have been afforded the full weight that the Nassau County Representative used during the SCAR proceeding. During the SCAR proceeding, I was asked multiple times to explain this issue. I explained that the value of the additional basement living area cannot count the existing foundation, ceiling beams, concrete flooring, electrical and water because these items already existed for the above grade improvements. I stated that the value of the finishes, such as sheetrock, flooring, lighting fixtures, new plumbing fixtures and glass doors can and should be considered. 8. Nassau County’s evidence stated the gross living area (GLA), without clearly identifying the 1,007 square feet of finished basement GLA. This, in my opinion, was misleading and confused the hearing officer. If the hearing officer did not understand this aspect of the argument, she should have requested additional information. 9. Valuation concepts are difficult to explain to individuals who have limited training and knowledge of such factors. Appraisers, on the other hand, have extensive knowledge and experience. Appraisers would recognize the difference between above grade and below grade space, applying appropriate adjustments. The standard URAR residential appraisal form has a specific line for basement, if finished and the amount of space. The County did not offer this, and despite our objections, the hearing officer disregarded this key factor. Appraisals may vary, but the process to establish the value does not. 10. I am of the opinion that the hearing officer’s inability to understand the issue related to above grade finished gross living area resulted in her completely disregarding the Petitioner’s CMA, which is arbitrary and capricious and due to lack of proper or sufficient training in property valuation. She does not indicate that there is a difference between the areas and fails to address the issue relating to a difference in values. The CMA submitted by the County does not separate the GLA into components. Without a separate factor for basement the value assumes the space is 100% above grade. The CMA for the Petitioner clearly has basement area and there is a 3 of 4 .. FILED: NASSAU COUNTY CLERK 06/24/2024 04:47 PM INDEX NO. 611054/2024 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 8 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 06/24/2024 specific line allocated for this at $125,000 to each sale. The hearing officer clearly disregarded this, which is arbitrary and capricious. 11. Finally, it is very clear from the Ladder report that adjustments are considered and applied to value based upon the age of the dwelling. All other factors home being equal, a newer will be more valuable than an older home. This is reflected in the County's valuation model under "Year Built Depreciation." Additionally, this process is consistent with best appraisal practices performed in the marketplace. 12. Notwithstanding the foregoing, the hearing officer failed to recognize that the two (2) compamble sales she utilized for her determination were new construction which would warrant a downward adjustment when compared to the subject. This too, was arbitrary and capricious. I affirm this 24th day of June2024, under the penalties of perjury unde · e laws of NewYork, which may include a e or imprisonment, that the foregoing is , an I understand that tlyis document ed in an act ón pr ding in a court MHNM. W TCH P 4 of 4