Preview
FILED: KINGS COUNTY CLERK 10/02/2018 03:21 PM INDEX NO. 401451/2018
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 1 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 10/02/2018
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
72 Poplar Street Condominium Board of Managers
PETITION
. Taxes of 2018-19
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
211 1601-1614 72 Poplar Street
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
condominium whose members are each the owners 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 thereof, by block and lot number by which
the said real property was designated on the tax maps of the City of New York for
the fiscal year July 1, 2018 to June 30, 2019.
1A. Pursuant to Sec. 339-y of the Real Property Law, the said owners have
each duly authorized the Board of Managers of said condominium to institute and
maintain this proceeding.
QUEENYOLA
1 of 7
FILED: KINGS COUNTY CLERK 10/02/2018 03:21 PM INDEX NO. 401451/2018
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 1 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 10/02/2018
2. During the time provided for by law one of the assessors of the
Property Division of the Department of Finance 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
"3" "4"
office of said 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
"3"
the assessments were confirmed as final in the amounts shown in columns
"4"
and 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
"3" "4"
shown in columns and of 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 and the correct full
value and the sum for which the said real property would sell under ordinary
circumstances on the statutory taxable status date is shown as the claimed
"5"
value in Column of Schedule A and the extent of overvaluation is the total
"4"
actual assessment specified for each tax lot (Column of Schedule A) less
the claimed correct full value specified for each tax lot (as set forth in
"5"
Column 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
assessment"
failed to receive a land only "progress 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.
2 of 7
FILED: KINGS COUNTY CLERK 10/02/2018 03:21 PM INDEX NO. 401451/2018
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 1 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 10/02/2018
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
"4"
difference between the actual total assessed value as set forth in Column
of Schedule A, and 15% of the amount specified as the claimed value for each
"5"
tax lot set forth in Column of 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 or partially 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
"taxable"
properties, respondents have reduced the value of real estate so
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 of 7
FILED: KINGS COUNTY CLERK 10/02/2018 03:21 PM INDEX NO. 401451/2018
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 1 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 10/02/2018
17. The assessments are illegal and unlawful in that respondents
have wrongfully denied petitioner 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 declared null and void and stricken from the
assessment roll nunc pro tunc.
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.
"petitioner"
22. Reference herein to 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