Preview
FILED: KINGS COUNTY CLERK 10/02/2018 11:36 AM INDEX NO. 519805/2018
- 007873 01 K 2472 55
Park
NYSCEF Tower
DOC. Realty
NO. 1 Co RECEIVED NYSCEF: 10/02/2018
SUP EME COU T OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK
COUNTY OF: Kings GROUP #: 18
. . . . . . . . - - - - . - - . . . . . . - .
In the Matterof Index No.
.
Greenpoint LLC Taxes of 2018 - 2 019
Landing Associates,
Petitioner(s), Borough of: Brooklyn
. Block: 2472 Lot: 55
against
Address: Commercial St.
THE TAX COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF NEW YORK AND
THE COMMISSIONER OF FINANCE OF THE CITY OF NEW YORK
Respondents.
- - . - - - - - - - - - - - - - . . . . . . .
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 a party with a pecuniary
interest in certain real property in the City of New York, which real property is described
in Schedule A hereto annexed and made part 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, 2018 to June 30, 2019.
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, 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 to be aggrieved
by said assessed valuation of said real property, duly made application in writing under oath to
the Tax Commission City York,of the of New 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 over-
valuation), misclassified, unequal (by reason of inequality), and unlawful (by reason of illegality)
and demanded appropriate relief.
4. Thereafter, on or about May 25, 2018, 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 30, 1, 2018 to June 2019 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.
1 of 5
FILED: KINGS COUNTY CLERK 10/02/2018 11:36 AM INDEX NO. 519805/2018
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 1 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 10/02/2018
. 6.. The saitl airessynenis are exces:;iv.e in that (a) the assessed vafuation speyds the full
value of th.e real p,roperty. ‰spin.for-9dlich·the said real·property would·ssil tmdef:ordinaty
cirpoms.tapses on'.the statutòff taxable status date is á)jgyn as the·cTaimed·fullivaluelp..Column
"S"
of Schedufe A·. Th6 eit.eent pf ovgr-v,aluation.is tite4ctual total assessments·pecified
for each tax Jot (Column "4"), less the cidiined conrect-fp)) value sp,ecified ibr eac& taxlot
"5" value fails to comply.with
as set forth in Column of·Schedule.A;. (b) the taxable assessed
thE·Iimitations of-increases-is'tiré åssesseaVdlii.e.s.ei35i‡Kin.ReälPFliperty TEx1aw Section
1805; (c) saici rea'l·property failed t6 receive all or a grtion of-an éxemptiön to whidh said
real próperty or the owner thereqfis entitled pursuàr to the law mthpWng the exemption; and
(d) the.e.ssessments are excessivein Thatthe property failed to receive,a-lahd only "progre.ss
assessment"
as a buildingin the epurse of constructión pursuant to Administrativ.e Code,Section
11-209.
7·. V/hdr6 thbiulgect prpperty-is fully pr pattitilly âxdnij½froin ta.xglign 1)pder RF1tsection
489 and ths Adn$nis rative Cp'deof,th.e aiedTsessmept-?1as·%eeh.
Gity 3fM.éw·YoyTc,·S.estion 11-2.43,
unlawfullyincreis.ed ih excéss ipf t1 .e assessmenfoi^the.previ0ui existing.dwellin.g·gppearingen
the.âsséssinentrolls·after the titxable:status.date immèdiately prec.edingthe coYñntencement ot the
alteration.and improvänients plus t)ie value of tlie.land ahd añýinipiovements, 6ther that those made
urider the prbvisions of RPTL Section 489 anà.Administrative Code.Section 11--243.
8. The said .assessmerits are erroneous by rea.sd.n of i.nequality anB are unequal irr thatthey
have been made at a higher proportionate valuation thiñ the assèssed valuati.qps of (a) otheries)
property on the assessrp.en tfolls-df the City:foirthe santesyear, .and/or (b) other real ptép
within the·.sgne gl:%ss on the samér.oll by the-s.ame officdt.. Tlis extent of su6hinequali.ty ilte
extent(a Which said.aisessn;epts a.re us.equal is equâ1tó thd differe.n.ce b.e veep tli.é;ac fòtal
ats'essed.value aspat fqrth'in S.chedtile A·and 2·f of tile amoan.t sp.edified.aythet claiinèd value for
each upit:setTdith:ib SchedbIt A.
9, Ep-TL sectidn 720(3) is uplawful, itnprop.6Y.hi[id ü3feonÈtitutiO.nal.·in thittikimprop6i·ly
limits the scope of evidence to be adduced by petitionér..
10. The assessments are ilfegal and unlawful in that they were made contrary to law.
11. The assessments are illegal and unlawful in that the projierty.shduld haste been.wholly
exempt from taxation.
12. Where-a.·n.otice increasing.Gie absessments of the·.sub,j.ect pfopèrtj(.wassentduringpr
sub.se,quentio !‡te time th.e beolts of the app.ual recoyd ofatsyss.ed valúâtioIrr6nfaipedvpen.for
publicitsp.ectiöha the notice purporgg tg incréase the itsseisrpep ris unlar f
.defeckvg .antivo)d in .th.ati.tfåils totfomply with Nat.%5.r).otityddfrey3tejiSection
Adniinistrative-Cöde Sec4on 11-:-aft;..Clinf tersection.1512:is·uplawftil, improperian .nrcyns6ta&enal .
in thatit discriminatesin favor of residential ver.§us co.mm.ercial property and fâils tó provide
adequatenotice of an increased assessment, and unconstitutionally vague in that it fails to
adequately define what is meant byresidentia) real estate.
13.. At all times herein relevant, the Constitution of the State of New.York, Article 8,Section
10, provides that real estate taxrevenues of the City of19.ew Yorkin any-fiscal year, exclusive
of debt servicerequire.ments, shalindt é;meed 2-1/2% of ther average full valu..9 ofits taxable
re.al.estate. for th..e latest fi.ve fiscal years. That by dis.ddyning.ting betENeen 1,ypes of pr.op.erjg,
réspondènts·1iave-redpced the value áfdtaxablé"Peni estate sq tlint the tax tate ext:e·éds tire
constitotional limitations by reasqn of th.eir.having-effe.ctively. ýánted exeinptions fropa taxation
to certam premises
14.. Where petitioner's property is a cooper,atiya or condominium, the assessmen.tifasbeen
made contrary to RPTL Section 581 and/o·r RFL Sec. 339-y.
2 of 5
FILED: KINGS COUNTY CLERK 10/02/2018 11:36 AM INDEX NO. 519805/2018
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 1 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 10/02/2018
15. These assessments and all of the assess.ments on tile assessmentrolls of the City of New
York are illegal and unlawful in that.Section 305(2) of the Real Property Taxlaw requires that
all real property in each assessing·unit shall.be assessed at a anifarm pércentage of value and
that the assessments.on said roll·are not assessed at such uniforin.percénfage.
.16- Where-the-assessni.ent.6E.the.subject-parcer.11as-beén-set b.as an . 6g otgross sples
pd.c.e,-tbe.asienerrien.tis.unlawful.in.that.parcels who.seasessntent.is bas 13 .odgrdst
sil.es·prfee unl.asvfpl- ste class of.real pró)feity wilich is . ass.essed ate
Eònstitute-an .
upifoyrn peri:entagyoffinite Tétjuf S'eetionf305( ):qqçP.whiffyp[ass is neb.·åuthprJzed
bý RFTL Sectibn 18Ö2 ér the þfew .State andÜnite;d..$tgtes Sohstitútiófis.
17·. The assessment.s.areillegal and unla·wful hi tliatréépondents h.ave wro.ngkily denied a
bearing td correctflie assessmentin qüesnon pursuant to.Administrative Code, Sect.ion11-208.1,
which is uncons6tutional, ob its face and as applied herein. -
18. Petitiorter's prop.erty has been niisclassifiid as being in class two, three or fourinstead
of the-appropriate·class fõr p6titipper'sp.rop.prty; fbe cla.ssrdesi@atron,ofpetitronets parcel
results in an incorrect:allocation oftffe parcel's âssésse·d:valuatidrr.bètinen two or Inore
classes; the criteria used·by.respõndents.for detennination:pf tax clas.s.ig,arbitrary, capticious
and unlawful.
1% The 49nial of,the fill inif appropriite innóunt.oliergypyition.upder BPTIf.Section bl-A
of any ·applicål Is statuth graptillg3exernption to UrdsuBje4t prdp:etty is·a'rbitrary, hapricious,
contrary to law.and ynake.s the assessrñènt uneq6al, uñlawful aba·êicessive. .
20.By reason of the aforesaid excessive, unèqual, erroneous, unla,wfhl and ill.egal
assessments, petitionerhas been aggrieved and will b,e injured t]fereby, an·d,will be coinpelled
to pay rnore than:itrjirtipgrshard·6·f tlitiafte-s tifthé City by1TéW YddC
. 2 .. Re.fes9nce herein.to "petitioner"·shall:btd6eined toinclude the yletitioner.named herein
and all of the petitrdner's·predecessors in interest.
22: The.IsropertyTs tr:an.si.tion ass.essments·arfmessive:.in th:a..t.thpy.have.ti.den,,(a);õarculated
in a:rnanner incos);List ith.thjqrpvisityns·ofÈéal brppetty..Tâil:aw;, astl pr (by calculatgdig,a
rñggrier.itT.cp±·stenOvithrtli6.tránsititiiial assessmept calculaRon-for otherlil;opgtfi.ea Jn.tÚB,City
of New York.
23. No previous application has been maile for thb·rélièiftierehi sought tothis or any.other
Court or ludge.
WHEREFORÈ,.yaprpetitioner prays that the Sppre·me Court revie$ and correct on
th.eInerits the·aforententionèd final-deterinination of tlie Tax.Commissibn on‡he grounds sqt
forth in.this petition. and-that the Court talce evi.dence..to eñable your petitioner tdih·ow the
unjust, erropeous,5)Jegal,usirwful, excessive and utiequaLassessments pf said real propeity
and its rtdsclassificatidn to the·endthat·the said assesprngnts.nlay be.neduced·to the.suffrfor
v/liich the said-property would:sell·under:orslinärÿ dfqumstayices ·fórTand and imprcMmapit
at a faluatiof1firdpbrtionate to the assessments 9totherrearproperty-as.sessed..oirthe same
rolls and/or other real propertyb.f the saine clasrassehied dii thesime rolls, for·the galpe yp.ar,
so that equality of âášéšsments will resulf.,.apd that all:pyoperdies-shall be -eacead ata unifóriii
percentajge so thatrsaid assessments will hot beundgualcand that eqùality òf assessments will
result, and so that the assesshep's not-Be contrary to law, arid so that any 6xcessivs transition
assessmen ts for this year and subsequent tax yeats bereduced in accordance with law, and
for such other and further félief as the Court may deem proper, togetherwith costs.
3 of 5
FILED: KINGS COUNTY CLERK 10/02/2018 11:36 AM INDEX NO. 519805/2018
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 1 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 10/02/2018
--
Park Tower Realty Corp. 7873 01 K 2472 55
Schedule A
For the period commencing July 1, 2018 and ending June 30, 2019
1 2 3 4 5
ASSESSMENT Claimed Full Value
Block Lot of Land &
Land Land & Improvements ImprGversents
2472 55 9,730 9,730 2,000
Dated, New York, N.Y. Augüst 8, 2018
State of New York
County of L(EE#S ss.:
Matthew W. Mayer
being duly sworn deposes and says:
That I am Executive VP of the pennõñér(s) herein; that I have read and know the
contents of this peMMen; that the same is true to my kñó ledge, except as to matters stated to be alleged
on information and belief, and as to those matters I believe them to be true.
Where pentioner is a corpGrati6ñ, the reason why this verincanêñ is made by depo t and not by pe
is because p- 'lilear is a corporation and deponent is one of its officers, to wit ts
Sworn to bef re me this
g 8 day of / 4 fÝ , 2018
atthew W. Mayer
NOTARY
MARGARET T. HEALY
SIGNS
Notary Pu li or Commissioner of Deeds / Notary Public-State of New York
HERE No. 01HE6062685
Qualified in Queens County
Commission Expires 8/13/20U
(4)
4 of 5
FILED: KINGS COUNTY CLERK 10/02/2018 11:36 AM INDEX NO. 519805/2018
Park Tower
NYSCEF DOC. NO.Corp.
1 7873 - 01 K 2472 55
RECEIVED 18 10/02/2018
NYSCEF:
Realty
Index No. Year 2018
Supreme Court
County of Kings
In the Matter of
Greenpoint Landing Associates, LLC
Petitioner
against
The Tax Commission of the City of New York and
The Commissioner of Finance of the City of New York
Respondents
PETITION FOR REVIEW OF
REAL PROPERTY ASSESSMENT
Podell, Schwartz, Schcchter & Banfield, LLP
Attorneys for Petitioner
Office and Post Office Address
605 Third Avenue
Borough of unnhattan
New York, New York 10158
Tel: (212) 883-6500
ADRIAN DIAZ
Ililllliill I I IllillIIIII Ill Illlllilll Ill
3024720055
5 of 5
Preview
FILED: KINGS COUNTY CLERK 10/02/2018 11:36 AM INDEX NO. 519805/2018 - 007873 01 K 2472 55 Park NYSCEF Tower DOC. Realty NO. 1 Co RECEIVED NYSCEF: 10/02/2018 SUP EME COU T OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK COUNTY OF: Kings GROUP #: 18 . . . . . . . . - - - - . - - . . . . . . - . In the Matterof Index No. . Greenpoint LLC Taxes of 2018 - 2 019 Landing Associates, Petitioner(s), Borough of: Brooklyn . Block: 2472 Lot: 55 against Address: Commercial St. THE TAX COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF NEW YORK AND THE COMMISSIONER OF FINANCE OF THE CITY OF NEW YORK Respondents. - - . - - - - - - - - - - - - - . . . . . . . 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 a party with a pecuniary interest in certain real property in the City of New York, which real property is described in Schedule A hereto annexed and made part 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, 2018 to June 30, 2019. 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, 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 to be aggrieved by said assessed valuation of said real property, duly made application in writing under oath to the Tax Commission City York,of the of New 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 over- valuation), misclassified, unequal (by reason of inequality), and unlawful (by reason of illegality) and demanded appropriate relief. 4. Thereafter, on or about May 25, 2018, 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 30, 1, 2018 to June 2019 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. 1 of 5 FILED: KINGS COUNTY CLERK 10/02/2018 11:36 AM INDEX NO. 519805/2018 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 1 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 10/02/2018 . 6.. The saitl airessynenis are exces:;iv.e in that (a) the assessed vafuation speyds the full value of th.e real p,roperty. ‰spin.for-9dlich·the said real·property would·ssil tmdef:ordinaty cirpoms.tapses on'.the statutòff taxable status date is á)jgyn as the·cTaimed·fullivaluelp..Column "S" of Schedufe A·. Th6 eit.eent pf ovgr-v,aluation.is tite4ctual total assessments·pecified for each tax Jot (Column "4"), less the cidiined conrect-fp)) value sp,ecified ibr eac& taxlot "5" value fails to comply.with as set forth in Column of·Schedule.A;. (b) the taxable assessed thE·Iimitations of-increases-is'tiré åssesseaVdlii.e.s.ei35i‡Kin.ReälPFliperty TEx1aw Section 1805; (c) saici rea'l·property failed t6 receive all or a grtion of-an éxemptiön to whidh said real próperty or the owner thereqfis entitled pursuàr to the law mthpWng the exemption; and (d) the.e.ssessments are excessivein Thatthe property failed to receive,a-lahd only "progre.ss assessment" as a buildingin the epurse of constructión pursuant to Administrativ.e Code,Section 11-209. 7·. V/hdr6 thbiulgect prpperty-is fully pr pattitilly âxdnij½froin ta.xglign 1)pder RF1tsection 489 and ths Adn$nis rative Cp'deof,th.e aiedTsessmept-?1as·%eeh. Gity 3fM.éw·YoyTc,·S.estion 11-2.43, unlawfullyincreis.ed ih excéss ipf t1 .e assessmenfoi^the.previ0ui existing.dwellin.g·gppearingen the.âsséssinentrolls·after the titxable:status.date immèdiately prec.edingthe coYñntencement ot the alteration.and improvänients plus t)ie value of tlie.land ahd añýinipiovements, 6ther that those made urider the prbvisions of RPTL Section 489 anà.Administrative Code.Section 11--243. 8. The said .assessmerits are erroneous by rea.sd.n of i.nequality anB are unequal irr thatthey have been made at a higher proportionate valuation thiñ the assèssed valuati.qps of (a) otheries) property on the assessrp.en tfolls-df the City:foirthe santesyear, .and/or (b) other real ptép within the·.sgne gl:%ss on the samér.oll by the-s.ame officdt.. Tlis extent of su6hinequali.ty ilte extent(a Which said.aisessn;epts a.re us.equal is equâ1tó thd differe.n.ce b.e veep tli.é;ac fòtal ats'essed.value aspat fqrth'in S.chedtile A·and 2·f of tile amoan.t sp.edified.aythet claiinèd value for each upit:setTdith:ib SchedbIt A. 9, Ep-TL sectidn 720(3) is uplawful, itnprop.6Y.hi[id ü3feonÈtitutiO.nal.·in thittikimprop6i·ly limits the scope of evidence to be adduced by petitionér.. 10. The assessments are ilfegal and unlawful in that they were made contrary to law. 11. The assessments are illegal and unlawful in that the projierty.shduld haste been.wholly exempt from taxation. 12. Where-a.·n.otice increasing.Gie absessments of the·.sub,j.ect pfopèrtj(.wassentduringpr sub.se,quentio !‡te time th.e beolts of the app.ual recoyd ofatsyss.ed valúâtioIrr6nfaipedvpen.for publicitsp.ectiöha the notice purporgg tg incréase the itsseisrpep ris unlar f .defeckvg .antivo)d in .th.ati.tfåils totfomply with Nat.%5.r).otityddfrey3tejiSection Adniinistrative-Cöde Sec4on 11-:-aft;..Clinf tersection.1512:is·uplawftil, improperian .nrcyns6ta&enal . in thatit discriminatesin favor of residential ver.§us co.mm.ercial property and fâils tó provide adequatenotice of an increased assessment, and unconstitutionally vague in that it fails to adequately define what is meant byresidentia) real estate. 13.. At all times herein relevant, the Constitution of the State of New.York, Article 8,Section 10, provides that real estate taxrevenues of the City of19.ew Yorkin any-fiscal year, exclusive of debt servicerequire.ments, shalindt é;meed 2-1/2% of ther average full valu..9 ofits taxable re.al.estate. for th..e latest fi.ve fiscal years. That by dis.ddyning.ting betENeen 1,ypes of pr.op.erjg, réspondènts·1iave-redpced the value áfdtaxablé"Peni estate sq tlint the tax tate ext:e·éds tire constitotional limitations by reasqn of th.eir.having-effe.ctively. ýánted exeinptions fropa taxation to certam premises 14.. Where petitioner's property is a cooper,atiya or condominium, the assessmen.tifasbeen made contrary to RPTL Section 581 and/o·r RFL Sec. 339-y. 2 of 5 FILED: KINGS COUNTY CLERK 10/02/2018 11:36 AM INDEX NO. 519805/2018 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 1 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 10/02/2018 15. These assessments and all of the assess.ments on tile assessmentrolls of the City of New York are illegal and unlawful in that.Section 305(2) of the Real Property Taxlaw requires that all real property in each assessing·unit shall.be assessed at a anifarm pércentage of value and that the assessments.on said roll·are not assessed at such uniforin.percénfage. .16- Where-the-assessni.ent.6E.the.subject-parcer.11as-beén-set b.as an . 6g otgross sples pd.c.e,-tbe.asienerrien.tis.unlawful.in.that.parcels who.seasessntent.is bas 13 .odgrdst sil.es·prfee unl.asvfpl- ste class of.real pró)feity wilich is . ass.essed ate Eònstitute-an . upifoyrn peri:entagyoffinite Tétjuf S'eetionf305( ):qqçP.whiffyp[ass is neb.·åuthprJzed bý RFTL Sectibn 18Ö2 ér the þfew .State andÜnite;d..$tgtes Sohstitútiófis. 17·. The assessment.s.areillegal and unla·wful hi tliatréépondents h.ave wro.ngkily denied a bearing td correctflie assessmentin qüesnon pursuant to.Administrative Code, Sect.ion11-208.1, which is uncons6tutional, ob its face and as applied herein. - 18. Petitiorter's prop.erty has been niisclassifiid as being in class two, three or fourinstead of the-appropriate·class fõr p6titipper'sp.rop.prty; fbe cla.ssrdesi@atron,ofpetitronets parcel results in an incorrect:allocation oftffe parcel's âssésse·d:valuatidrr.bètinen two or Inore classes; the criteria used·by.respõndents.for detennination:pf tax clas.s.ig,arbitrary, capticious and unlawful. 1% The 49nial of,the fill inif appropriite innóunt.oliergypyition.upder BPTIf.Section bl-A of any ·applicål Is statuth graptillg3exernption to UrdsuBje4t prdp:etty is·a'rbitrary, hapricious, contrary to law.and ynake.s the assessrñènt uneq6al, uñlawful aba·êicessive. . 20.By reason of the aforesaid excessive, unèqual, erroneous, unla,wfhl and ill.egal assessments, petitionerhas been aggrieved and will b,e injured t]fereby, an·d,will be coinpelled to pay rnore than:itrjirtipgrshard·6·f tlitiafte-s tifthé City by1TéW YddC . 2 .. Re.fes9nce herein.to "petitioner"·shall:btd6eined toinclude the yletitioner.named herein and all of the petitrdner's·predecessors in interest. 22: The.IsropertyTs tr:an.si.tion ass.essments·arfmessive:.in th:a..t.thpy.have.ti.den,,(a);õarculated in a:rnanner incos);List ith.thjqrpvisityns·ofÈéal brppetty..Tâil:aw;, astl pr (by calculatgdig,a rñggrier.itT.cp±·stenOvithrtli6.tránsititiiial assessmept calculaRon-for otherlil;opgtfi.ea Jn.tÚB,City of New York. 23. No previous application has been maile for thb·rélièiftierehi sought tothis or any.other Court or ludge. WHEREFORÈ,.yaprpetitioner prays that the Sppre·me Court revie$ and correct on th.eInerits the·aforententionèd final-deterinination of tlie Tax.Commissibn on‡he grounds sqt forth in.this petition. and-that the Court talce evi.dence..to eñable your petitioner tdih·ow the unjust, erropeous,5)Jegal,usirwful, excessive and utiequaLassessments pf said real propeity and its rtdsclassificatidn to the·endthat·the said assesprngnts.nlay be.neduced·to the.suffrfor v/liich the said-property would:sell·under:orslinärÿ dfqumstayices ·fórTand and imprcMmapit at a faluatiof1firdpbrtionate to the assessments 9totherrearproperty-as.sessed..oirthe same rolls and/or other real propertyb.f the saine clasrassehied dii thesime rolls, for·the galpe yp.ar, so that equality of âášéšsments will resulf.,.apd that all:pyoperdies-shall be -eacead ata unifóriii percentajge so thatrsaid assessments will hot beundgualcand that eqùality òf assessments will result, and so that the assesshep's not-Be contrary to law, arid so that any 6xcessivs transition assessmen ts for this year and subsequent tax yeats bereduced in accordance with law, and for such other and further félief as the Court may deem proper, togetherwith costs. 3 of 5 FILED: KINGS COUNTY CLERK 10/02/2018 11:36 AM INDEX NO. 519805/2018 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 1 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 10/02/2018 -- Park Tower Realty Corp. 7873 01 K 2472 55 Schedule A For the period commencing July 1, 2018 and ending June 30, 2019 1 2 3 4 5 ASSESSMENT Claimed Full Value Block Lot of Land & Land Land & Improvements ImprGversents 2472 55 9,730 9,730 2,000 Dated, New York, N.Y. Augüst 8, 2018 State of New York County of L(EE#S ss.: Matthew W. Mayer being duly sworn deposes and says: That I am Executive VP of the pennõñér(s) herein; that I have read and know the contents of this peMMen; that the same is true to my kñó ledge, except as to matters stated to be alleged on information and belief, and as to those matters I believe them to be true. Where pentioner is a corpGrati6ñ, the reason why this verincanêñ is made by depo t and not by pe is because p- 'lilear is a corporation and deponent is one of its officers, to wit ts Sworn to bef re me this g 8 day of / 4 fÝ , 2018 atthew W. Mayer NOTARY MARGARET T. HEALY SIGNS Notary Pu li or Commissioner of Deeds / Notary Public-State of New York HERE No. 01HE6062685 Qualified in Queens County Commission Expires 8/13/20U (4) 4 of 5 FILED: KINGS COUNTY CLERK 10/02/2018 11:36 AM INDEX NO. 519805/2018 Park Tower NYSCEF DOC. NO.Corp. 1 7873 - 01 K 2472 55 RECEIVED 18 10/02/2018 NYSCEF: Realty Index No. Year 2018 Supreme Court County of Kings In the Matter of Greenpoint Landing Associates, LLC Petitioner against The Tax Commission of the City of New York and The Commissioner of Finance of the City of New York Respondents PETITION FOR REVIEW OF REAL PROPERTY ASSESSMENT Podell, Schwartz, Schcchter & Banfield, LLP Attorneys for Petitioner Office and Post Office Address 605 Third Avenue Borough of unnhattan New York, New York 10158 Tel: (212) 883-6500 ADRIAN DIAZ Ililllliill I I IllillIIIII Ill Illlllilll Ill 3024720055 5 of 5