Preview
INDEX NO 2014-50450
(FILED: DUTUHESS COUNTY CLERK 0771172014)
NYSCEF DOC. NOJ) 1 RECEIVED NYSCEF 07/11/2014
SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK
COUNTY OF DUTCHESS
-------------+--~----------------= -- eeon oe
In the Matter of the Application of:
MOUNTAIN BROOK REALTY LP NOTICE OF PETITION
AND PETITION
Petitioner,
-against-
THE ASSESSOR, THE BOARD OF ASSESSORS AND THE Index #
BOARD OF ASSESSMENT REVIEW OF THE TOWN OF
POUGHKEEPSIE Tax Year 2014/15
AND THE TOWN OF POUGHKEEPSIE
Respondents.
For Review of a Tax Assessment Under Article 7
of the Real Property Tax Law.
100-0540
sIRS
PLEASE TAKE NOTICE that upon the annexed Petition,
application will be made at Special Term of the Supreme Court of
the State of New York to be held at the Courthouse located in the
State of New York, Dutchess County Supreme Court, 10 Market Street,
Poughkeepsie on the 3rd Day of September 2014 at the opening of
Court on that day or as soon thereafter as counsel can be heard,
for review under Article 7 of the Real Property Tax Law of the
assessment upon Petitioner's real property described in the
Petition, and for such other and further relief as the Court may
deem just and proper.
DATED: 7/7/2014
Yours, etc.
CRONIN & CRONIN LAW FIRM, PLLC.
Attorneys for Petitioner
200 Old Country Road, Suite 570
Mineola, New York 11501
The
The aforementioned Petitioner, by its attorney, CRONT. CF NIN LAW FIRM,
PLLC, respectfully alleges as follows:
1 The aforementioned Petitioner, whose post office address is c/o CRONIN &
CRONIN Law Firm, PLLC, 200 Old Country Road, Mineola, New York 11501, at all times
herein mentioned, was and still is an aggrieved party under section 704 and 706 of
the RPTL with respect to the assessment roll set forth in the schedule in this
petition.
is The Respondents prepared and completed, according to law, a tentative
assessment roll for the assessing jurisdiction for the year set forth on the cover
page of this petition and notice of petition, which assessment roll included an
assessment for Petitioner's real property, described in the following schedule.
3 If there be more than one Petitioner herein, the word “Petitioner” shall
mean “Petitioners” or “each of the Petitioners”, whenever the sense and context so
requires.
4. If there be more than one assessment herein, the word “assessment” shall
mean “assessments” or “each of the assessments”, whenever the sense and context so
requires.
Bia if there be more than one property herein, the word “property” shall mean
“properties” or “each of the properties”, whenever the sense and context so
requires.
6. Respondents are authorized to assess real property in said jurisdiction.
Te Respondents are authorized to hear and determine complaints in relation to
assessment and has all of the powers and duties imposed by the Real Property Tax
Law.
8 The Respondents prepared and completed a tentative assessment roll of all
real property in said jurisdiction for the tax year as set forth on the attached
schedule.
9 On or before Grievance Day, Petitioner protested said assessment by filing
with Paerandante 2 owed than arelinctine one : 7
séssed eluation wear
in which application was included a statement, under oath, specifying
the respects in which said assessment was incorrect and a request that said
assessment be corrected and reduced as set forth in the aforementioned schedule.
Said application and statements are hereby referred to and made a part of this
Petition as if fully set forth herein.
10. The said application and statements were received by Respondents, without
objection, within the time fixed by law for the making and hearing of complaints in
respect to assessments.
11. A final decision and determination of the assessments of said real
properties were duly rendered by Respondents, who failed to correct and reduce said
assessment as requested and finally completed and filed the assessment roll as
required by law to the amount set forth in the aforementioned schedule.
12. Thirty (30) days has not elapsed since the latter of the final completion
and filing of the assessment roll and the giving of notice thereof as required by
law, or, the final day set by law for the filing of the assessment roll.
13, The Petitioner herein alleges that a common question of law or fact exists
pursuant to RPTL Section 706(2).
14. The said assessment of your Petitioner's property on the assessment roll
as finally completed is incorrect and erroneous upon the following grounds:
(a) Excessive to the extent set forth in the aforementioned scheduled.
(b) Unequal to the extent set forth in the aforementioned scheduled in that there
is an inequality of assessments, the Petitioner’s assessment having been made at a
higher proportionate valuation than the assessments of other real property on the
same roll and/or other real property in the same class on the same roll by the same
officers and Respondents; the specified instances of said inequality are the
assessments of all of the real property and/or other real property in the same
class other than the property of Petitioner in the assessing jurisdiction and in
each and every parcel thereof. In order that the assessment of Petitioner’s real
~ w eos esomeiiLS en ak on Lue rea. proverry
throughout the assessing jurisdiction and/or other real property in the same class
throughout the assessing jurisdiction, it is necessary that it be reduced to the
amount set forth in the aforementioned schedule.
(c) Illegality to the extent set forth in the aforementioned schedule in that
subject property is being assessed in an erroneous, arbitrary, and capricious
manner.
(d) Unconstitutional to the extent the methodology used by the Respondents is in
violation of the Equal Protection Clause of the New York State Constitution and the
United States Constitution.
(e) Illegal and unconstitutional to the extent that the Petitioner's property has
been reevaluated by the Respondents, and on information and belief, no improvements
had been made by Petitioner and no construction of any structure had occurred which
could justify the increase in assessment.
15. While confirming the increased assessment placed upon Petitioner’s real
property, on information and belief, the Respondent Assessor(s) did not engage in
any market reevaluation as to lots that are similar to those owned by the
Petitioner.
16. If the assessment at issue is a transitional assessment, such assessment
is excessive, erroneous and illegal in that it exceeds the permissible transitional
increase as set forth in the Real Property Tax Law.
17. Your Petitioner is aggrieved and injured by said unjust, unequal ,
excessive, illegal, incorrect and erroneous assessment in that, by reason thereof,
Petitioner will be compelled to pay a greater amount and proportion of taxes based
upon the assessment roll than Petitioner would be required to pay if said
assessment had been just, fair, equal and correct.
18. No provision is made by law for an appeal or other relief from the final
determination of Respondents, except by a review by petition to the Supreme Court
and no previous application for the relief herein asked has been made to any court
ae Td
19. The assessment is excessive and illegal in that Petitioner is Genied the
benefit of a RPTL §485-b New Construction Exemption even though the Petitioner
complied with all the requirements set forth therein and that the construction is
completed in accordance with RPTL §485-b.
20. The Petitioner's real property has been misclassified. The class
designation of Petitioner’s real property results in an incorrect allocation of the
real property’s assessed valuation between two or more classes. The criteria used
by the Respondents for the determination by tax class is arbitrary, capricious and
unlawful.
21. The Agricultural Exemption is improperly implemented in that it omitted
acreage as not qualified for the exemption even though this acreage is used solely
for agricultural use.
WHEREFORE, your Petitioner prays that the Supreme Court review and correct on
the merits the aforementioned final determination of the Respondents on the grounds
set forth in this Petition, and that the said Court take evidence to enable your
Petitioner to show the unjust, unequal, excessive, illegal, misclassified and
erroneous assessment of the said real property to the end that the assessment may
be reduced to the full, true and market value thereof for land and improvements and
to a valuation proportionate to the assessments of other real property, and/or all
other property in the same class, assessed on the same rolls for the same year, so
that equality of assessments will result, and may be properly classified, and for
such other and further relief as the Court may deem proper, together with the cost
and disbursements of this proceeding.
CRONIN & CRONIN LAW FIRM, PLLC
Attorneys for Petitioner
200 Old Country Road, Suite 570
Mineola, New York
(516) 747-2220
STATE OF NEW YORK )
sS.:
COUNTY OF NASSAU )
SEAN M. CRONIN, being duly sworn, deposes and says:
That deponent is the agent for the Petitioners herein, that deponent has read
the foregoing Notice of Petition and Petition and knows the contents thereof; that
the same is true to deponent’s own knowledge, except as to matters therein stated
to be alleged upon information and belief, and that as to those matters, deponent
believes it to be true; and that the reason this verification is made by deponent
and not by the Petitioners is that all the material allegations (except those as to
matters of public record) of said Petition are within the personal knowledge of
deponent.
se
SEAN M. CRONIN
Sworn to before me this
THh day of Jul
1 1 2014
LZ.Public ED
Alotary
JOHN GENARO BUONAVITA
Notary Public, State of New York
No. 01BU6276463
Qualified in Queens County
Commission Expires February 19, 2017
DES 6162-19-685225- OOOOMY
‘mn | #864467*
Tentative AV Claimed AV Final AV Ineq/Ovval
$17,100,000 $1,710,000 $17,100,000 $15,390,000
CRONIN & CRONIN LAW FIRM, PLLC. IS HEREBY AUTHORIZED to file and verify as agent
complaints and petitions for the reduction of real estate tax assessments for the following property and to represent
the petitioner in all appeals therefrom.
CLIENT ID:
SWIS CODE: 134600
COUNTY OF DUTCHESS
TOWN OF POUGHKEEPSIE
PROPERTY ADDRESS sD TAX DESCRIPTION
134 INNIS AVENUE 133201 6162-19-685225- 0OOOMY
Number of Lots Covered: 1
DATED:
PETITIONER: Baton
January 02, 2014
Signature:
Meg 06dt pop
Name: Libeyp PUTA Saw Title:
FILE # 100-0540
CHAIN
99=1
CO
+ CHEN PEORE
007999
> 3 an.
Preview
INDEX NO 2014-50450 (FILED: DUTUHESS COUNTY CLERK 0771172014) NYSCEF DOC. NOJ) 1 RECEIVED NYSCEF 07/11/2014 SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK COUNTY OF DUTCHESS -------------+--~----------------= -- eeon oe In the Matter of the Application of: MOUNTAIN BROOK REALTY LP NOTICE OF PETITION AND PETITION Petitioner, -against- THE ASSESSOR, THE BOARD OF ASSESSORS AND THE Index # BOARD OF ASSESSMENT REVIEW OF THE TOWN OF POUGHKEEPSIE Tax Year 2014/15 AND THE TOWN OF POUGHKEEPSIE Respondents. For Review of a Tax Assessment Under Article 7 of the Real Property Tax Law. 100-0540 sIRS PLEASE TAKE NOTICE that upon the annexed Petition, application will be made at Special Term of the Supreme Court of the State of New York to be held at the Courthouse located in the State of New York, Dutchess County Supreme Court, 10 Market Street, Poughkeepsie on the 3rd Day of September 2014 at the opening of Court on that day or as soon thereafter as counsel can be heard, for review under Article 7 of the Real Property Tax Law of the assessment upon Petitioner's real property described in the Petition, and for such other and further relief as the Court may deem just and proper. DATED: 7/7/2014 Yours, etc. CRONIN & CRONIN LAW FIRM, PLLC. Attorneys for Petitioner 200 Old Country Road, Suite 570 Mineola, New York 11501 The The aforementioned Petitioner, by its attorney, CRONT. CF NIN LAW FIRM, PLLC, respectfully alleges as follows: 1 The aforementioned Petitioner, whose post office address is c/o CRONIN & CRONIN Law Firm, PLLC, 200 Old Country Road, Mineola, New York 11501, at all times herein mentioned, was and still is an aggrieved party under section 704 and 706 of the RPTL with respect to the assessment roll set forth in the schedule in this petition. is The Respondents prepared and completed, according to law, a tentative assessment roll for the assessing jurisdiction for the year set forth on the cover page of this petition and notice of petition, which assessment roll included an assessment for Petitioner's real property, described in the following schedule. 3 If there be more than one Petitioner herein, the word “Petitioner” shall mean “Petitioners” or “each of the Petitioners”, whenever the sense and context so requires. 4. If there be more than one assessment herein, the word “assessment” shall mean “assessments” or “each of the assessments”, whenever the sense and context so requires. Bia if there be more than one property herein, the word “property” shall mean “properties” or “each of the properties”, whenever the sense and context so requires. 6. Respondents are authorized to assess real property in said jurisdiction. Te Respondents are authorized to hear and determine complaints in relation to assessment and has all of the powers and duties imposed by the Real Property Tax Law. 8 The Respondents prepared and completed a tentative assessment roll of all real property in said jurisdiction for the tax year as set forth on the attached schedule. 9 On or before Grievance Day, Petitioner protested said assessment by filing with Paerandante 2 owed than arelinctine one : 7 séssed eluation wear in which application was included a statement, under oath, specifying the respects in which said assessment was incorrect and a request that said assessment be corrected and reduced as set forth in the aforementioned schedule. Said application and statements are hereby referred to and made a part of this Petition as if fully set forth herein. 10. The said application and statements were received by Respondents, without objection, within the time fixed by law for the making and hearing of complaints in respect to assessments. 11. A final decision and determination of the assessments of said real properties were duly rendered by Respondents, who failed to correct and reduce said assessment as requested and finally completed and filed the assessment roll as required by law to the amount set forth in the aforementioned schedule. 12. Thirty (30) days has not elapsed since the latter of the final completion and filing of the assessment roll and the giving of notice thereof as required by law, or, the final day set by law for the filing of the assessment roll. 13, The Petitioner herein alleges that a common question of law or fact exists pursuant to RPTL Section 706(2). 14. The said assessment of your Petitioner's property on the assessment roll as finally completed is incorrect and erroneous upon the following grounds: (a) Excessive to the extent set forth in the aforementioned scheduled. (b) Unequal to the extent set forth in the aforementioned scheduled in that there is an inequality of assessments, the Petitioner’s assessment having been made at a higher proportionate valuation than the assessments of other real property on the same roll and/or other real property in the same class on the same roll by the same officers and Respondents; the specified instances of said inequality are the assessments of all of the real property and/or other real property in the same class other than the property of Petitioner in the assessing jurisdiction and in each and every parcel thereof. In order that the assessment of Petitioner’s real ~ w eos esomeiiLS en ak on Lue rea. proverry throughout the assessing jurisdiction and/or other real property in the same class throughout the assessing jurisdiction, it is necessary that it be reduced to the amount set forth in the aforementioned schedule. (c) Illegality to the extent set forth in the aforementioned schedule in that subject property is being assessed in an erroneous, arbitrary, and capricious manner. (d) Unconstitutional to the extent the methodology used by the Respondents is in violation of the Equal Protection Clause of the New York State Constitution and the United States Constitution. (e) Illegal and unconstitutional to the extent that the Petitioner's property has been reevaluated by the Respondents, and on information and belief, no improvements had been made by Petitioner and no construction of any structure had occurred which could justify the increase in assessment. 15. While confirming the increased assessment placed upon Petitioner’s real property, on information and belief, the Respondent Assessor(s) did not engage in any market reevaluation as to lots that are similar to those owned by the Petitioner. 16. If the assessment at issue is a transitional assessment, such assessment is excessive, erroneous and illegal in that it exceeds the permissible transitional increase as set forth in the Real Property Tax Law. 17. Your Petitioner is aggrieved and injured by said unjust, unequal , excessive, illegal, incorrect and erroneous assessment in that, by reason thereof, Petitioner will be compelled to pay a greater amount and proportion of taxes based upon the assessment roll than Petitioner would be required to pay if said assessment had been just, fair, equal and correct. 18. No provision is made by law for an appeal or other relief from the final determination of Respondents, except by a review by petition to the Supreme Court and no previous application for the relief herein asked has been made to any court ae Td 19. The assessment is excessive and illegal in that Petitioner is Genied the benefit of a RPTL §485-b New Construction Exemption even though the Petitioner complied with all the requirements set forth therein and that the construction is completed in accordance with RPTL §485-b. 20. The Petitioner's real property has been misclassified. The class designation of Petitioner’s real property results in an incorrect allocation of the real property’s assessed valuation between two or more classes. The criteria used by the Respondents for the determination by tax class is arbitrary, capricious and unlawful. 21. The Agricultural Exemption is improperly implemented in that it omitted acreage as not qualified for the exemption even though this acreage is used solely for agricultural use. WHEREFORE, your Petitioner prays that the Supreme Court review and correct on the merits the aforementioned final determination of the Respondents on the grounds set forth in this Petition, and that the said Court take evidence to enable your Petitioner to show the unjust, unequal, excessive, illegal, misclassified and erroneous assessment of the said real property to the end that the assessment may be reduced to the full, true and market value thereof for land and improvements and to a valuation proportionate to the assessments of other real property, and/or all other property in the same class, assessed on the same rolls for the same year, so that equality of assessments will result, and may be properly classified, and for such other and further relief as the Court may deem proper, together with the cost and disbursements of this proceeding. CRONIN & CRONIN LAW FIRM, PLLC Attorneys for Petitioner 200 Old Country Road, Suite 570 Mineola, New York (516) 747-2220 STATE OF NEW YORK ) sS.: COUNTY OF NASSAU ) SEAN M. CRONIN, being duly sworn, deposes and says: That deponent is the agent for the Petitioners herein, that deponent has read the foregoing Notice of Petition and Petition and knows the contents thereof; that the same is true to deponent’s own knowledge, except as to matters therein stated to be alleged upon information and belief, and that as to those matters, deponent believes it to be true; and that the reason this verification is made by deponent and not by the Petitioners is that all the material allegations (except those as to matters of public record) of said Petition are within the personal knowledge of deponent. se SEAN M. CRONIN Sworn to before me this THh day of Jul 1 1 2014 LZ.Public ED Alotary JOHN GENARO BUONAVITA Notary Public, State of New York No. 01BU6276463 Qualified in Queens County Commission Expires February 19, 2017 DES 6162-19-685225- OOOOMY ‘mn | #864467* Tentative AV Claimed AV Final AV Ineq/Ovval $17,100,000 $1,710,000 $17,100,000 $15,390,000 CRONIN & CRONIN LAW FIRM, PLLC. IS HEREBY AUTHORIZED to file and verify as agent complaints and petitions for the reduction of real estate tax assessments for the following property and to represent the petitioner in all appeals therefrom. CLIENT ID: SWIS CODE: 134600 COUNTY OF DUTCHESS TOWN OF POUGHKEEPSIE PROPERTY ADDRESS sD TAX DESCRIPTION 134 INNIS AVENUE 133201 6162-19-685225- 0OOOMY Number of Lots Covered: 1 DATED: PETITIONER: Baton January 02, 2014 Signature: Meg 06dt pop Name: Libeyp PUTA Saw Title: FILE # 100-0540 CHAIN 99=1 CO + CHEN PEORE 007999 > 3 an.