Preview
FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 10/11/2010 INDEX NO. 256683/2010
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 1 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 10/11/2010
SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK
COUNTY OF New York
In the Matter of
Landmark17 Condominium
Borough of: Manhattan
Petitioner,
Taxes of 2010 - 2011
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
00898 1201 - 1213 231 East 17th Street
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 Condo Board of Managers and
representative of owners 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, 2010 to June 30, 2011.
Page 1
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, 2010 and March 1, 2010, 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
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, 2010, 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, 2010 to June 30, 2011 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.
Page 2
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 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.
Page 3
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.
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.
Page 4
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 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
BOROUGH: Manhattan
PETITIONER: Landmark17 Condominium
Schedule A
For the period commencing July 1, 2010 ending June 30, 2011
1 2 3 4 5
Assessment Assessment Claimed Value of
Block Lot Land Land&Improvements Land&Improvements
00898 1201 - 1213 00000702455 00001957501 00000067000
Dated, New York, N.Y. 2010
Petitioner
Landmark17 Condominium
SONNENSCHEIN, SHERMAN & DEUTSCH, LLP
ATTN.: MARTIN J. FRIEDMAN, ESQ.
7 PENN PLAZA, SUITE 900
NEW YORK, NEW YORK 10001 x_______________________________________
(212) 245 6754 Keith Wang
State of New York County of New York
Keith Wang, being duly sworn deposes and says:
That deponent is President 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.
That the reason why this verification is made by deponent and not by petitioner is because
petitioner is a Condominium Board of Managers and deponent is a member of the Board of Managers.
Sworn to before me this x_______________________________________
day of ______________, 2010 Keith Wang
NOTARY SIGNS x________________________________________
Notary Public or Commissioner of Deeds
Page 6