Preview
FILED: KINGS COUNTY CLERK 10/03/2018 08:51 AM INDEX NO. 401617/2018
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 1 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 10/03/2018
Attorney Group No. 135
Index No. Year 2018
SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK
COUNTY OF KINGS
______________________________________________
In the Matter of the Application of
Gateway Center Properties Phase II Owner
LLC
PETITION
Petitioner, Taxes of 2018-19
-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
4452 575 360 Gateway Drive (Bldg A -JCP)
4452 580 340 Gateway Drive
4452 590 550 Gateway Drive (Bldg G2)
TO THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK:
The Petitioner above named respectfully shows and alleges that:
1. At all times hereinafter mentioned, the petitioner was and
still is a limited liability company and the Owner of certain real
property in the Borough of Brooklyn, City of New York, which real
property is described in Schedule A hereto annexed and made part of
hereof, by block and lot number by which the said property was
designated on the tax maps of the City of New York for the fiscal
year July 1, 2018 to June 30, 2019.
RELATED
1 of 6
FILED: KINGS COUNTY CLERK 10/03/2018 08:51 AM INDEX NO. 401617/2018
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 1 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 10/03/2018
2. During the time provided for by law one of the assessors of the
Property Division of the Department of Finance ofthe 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
"3" "4"
Property Division as shown in columns and of Schedule A.
3. Between January 15, 2018 and March 1, 2018, the time that said books
were open for public inspection, or such further period as provided by law,
petitioner, claiming and being 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 by reason of
overvaluation (excessive), misclassification, inequality (unequal) and
illegality (unlawful) and demanded appropriate relief.
4. Thereafter, on or about May 25, 2018 , the Tax Commission, by
operation of law, duly rendered a final determination on said application, and
confirmed as final in the amounts shown in columns "3" and "4"
the assessments were
of Schedule A hereof.
5. Thereafter, upon information and belief, the assessment rolls of the
real property subject to taxation in the City of New York for the fiscal year July
1, 2018 to June 30, 2019 were prepared, certified and delivered to the City
Council of the City of New York as required by law, which assessment rolls
contained the said assessments upon petitioner's said real property as shown in
columns "3" and "4" of Schedule A and the Council proceeded thereon for the
City
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 and the correct full value
and the sum for which the said real property would sell under ordinary circumstances
status is shown as the claimed value in Column "5"
on the statutory taxable date
of Schedule A and the extent of overvaluation is the total actual assessment
specified for each tax lot (Column "4" of Schedule less the claimed correct
A)
full value specified for each tax lot (as set forth in Column "5" of Schedule
A); (b) the actual assessment and/or transition assessment is excessive in that
the taxable assessed value fails to comply with the limitations of increases and
methods of computation set forth in Real Property Tax Law Section 1805; (c) the
assessments are excessive in that 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 in the course of construction pursuant to
building
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.
-2-
2 of 6
FILED: KINGS COUNTY CLERK 10/03/2018 08:51 AM INDEX NO. 401617/2018
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 1 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 10/03/2018
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
Column "4" of Schedule and 15% of the amount specified as the claimed
A,
for each tax lot set forth in Column "5" of Schedule A.
value
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 or partially exempt from taxation.
12. The assessments are illegal and unlawful in that 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
respondents have reduced the value of "taxable" real estate so
properties,
that the tax rate exceeds the constitutional limitations by reason of their
having effectively granted exemptions from taxation to certain premises.
By reason thereof, petitioner has been compelled to pay more than the
constitutionally permissible tax rate.
14. Where petitioner's property is a cooperative or condominium, the
assessment has been made contrary to RPTL Section 581 and/or RPTL Section
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, and the Constitution of the State of New
York and of the United States.
-3-
3 of 6
FILED: KINGS COUNTY CLERK 10/03/2018 08:51 AM INDEX NO. 401617/2018
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 1 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 10/03/2018
17. The assessments are illegal and unlawful in that respondents have
wrongfully deniedpetitioner a hearing to correct the assessment in question pursuant
to Administrative Code, Section 11-208.1. Such denial is unconstitutional on its
face and as applied herein.
18. Petitioner's property has been misclassified as being in class 2, 2A,
2B, 2C, 3, 4 or 4A 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 full and appropriate amount of exemption under RPTL Section
421-A and/or RPTL Section 489 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. The Tax Commission has arbitrarily and capriciously issued forms and
rules of procedure and has denied required hearings of petitioner's property in
violation of Section 163, 164 and 1041 of the New York City Charter and Section
11-216 of the New York City Administrative Code. Therefore the assessment should
be declarednull andvoid andstrickenfrom the assessment roll nuncpro tune.
21. 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.
22. Reference herein to "petitioner" shall be deemed to include the
petitioner named herein and all of said petitioner's predecessors and/or
successors in interest.
23. 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 of other properties in the City of New York.
24. No previous application has been made for the relief herein sought to this
or any other Court or Judge.
WHEREFORE, your petitioner requests 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 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.
-4-
4 of 6
FILED: KINGS COUNTY CLERK 10/03/2018 08:51 AM INDEX NO. 401617/2018
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 1 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 10/03/2018
Dated:New York, N.Y., 7 ,2018
Petitioner: Gateway Center Properties Phase II Owner LLC
By:
Glenn Go dstein, Exec. V.P. of bMember of Applicant
Marcus & Pollack LLP, Attorneys for Petitioner
633 Thi Avenu 9th Floor, New York, NY 10017 (212) 490-2900
By:
Robert M. Pollack, Attorney
STATE OF New York )
COUNTY OF NEW YORK ) ss:
Glenn Goldstein, being deposes
duly and
sworn, says:
That deponent is Exec. Member
V.P. of Applicant
of a of Gateway Center
Propert