Preview
FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 09/21/2018 03:35 PM INDEX NO. 250437/2018
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 1 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 09/21/2018
Attorney Group No. 2
SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE 0F NEW YORK
COUNTY OF NEW YORK
------ - ----- ---------------
Index No. 2018
In the Matter of the Application of
345 RIVERSIDE DR. APARTMENT CORP.
Borough of: Manhattan
PETITION
Petitioner,
Taxes of 2018-2019
-against-
THE TAX COMMISSION 0F THE CITY 0F NEW YORK
and THE COMMISSIONER 0F FINANCE OF THE CITY
0F NEW YORK,
Respondents.
Block Lot Address
1892 32 345 Riverside Drive
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 sti II is a domestic
corporation and the Owner of certain real property in the Borough of Manhattan, City of New York,
which real property is described in Schedule A annexed hereto and made part of hereof, block
by
and fot number by which the said property was designated on the tax maps of the of New York
City
for the fiscal year July 1, 2018 to June 30, 2019.
MIDBOR0ZI
1 of 5
FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 09/21/2018 03:35 PM INDEX NO. 250437/2018
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 1 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 09/21/2018
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 detai I in the
"3"
books kept in the office of said Rea I Property Assessment Bureau as shown in Columns
"4"
and of Schedule A.
3. Between January 15, 2018 and March 1, 2018, the time that sa id books
were open for publ ic 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 al I assessments of real property for taxation in
the City of New York. In said appl ication, 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 i I legal ity)
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
"3" "4"
the amounts shown in Columns and of Schedule A hereof.
5. Thereafter, the assessment rol Is of the real property subject to
taxation in the City of New York for the fiscal year July I, 2018 to June 30, 2019 were
prepared, certified and del ivered to the City Counci I of the City of New York in
accordance with law, which assessment rol Is contained the sa id assessments upon
petitioner' "3" "4"
s said real property as shown in Columns and of Schedule A and the
City Counci I proceeded thereon for the levying and col lection of taxes.
6. The said assessments are excessive in that (a) the assessed valuation
exceeds the fu I I value of the real property. The sum for which the said real property
would sel I under ordinary circumstances on the statutory taxable status date is shown as
"5"
the claimed value in Column of Schedule A. The extent of over-valuation is the actual
total assessment specified for each tax lot (Column "4"), less the claimed correct ful I
"5"
value specified for each tax lot as set forth in Column of Schedule A; (b) the taxable
assessed value fa iIs to comply with the limitations of increases in assessed value set
forth in Real Property Tax Law Section 1805; (c) said real property fai led to receive al I
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
assessment"
that the property fai led to receive a land only "progress as a bui in the
lding
course of construction pursuant to Administrative Code Section 11-209.
7. Where the subject property is ful ly or partial ly exempt from taxation
under RPTL Section 489 and the Administrative Code of the of New 11-
City York, Section
243, the assessment has been unlawfully increased in excess of the assessment of the
previous existing dwel ling appearing on the assessment rol Is 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 inequal and are
ity
unequal in that they have been made at a higher proportionate valuation than the assessed
va luations of (a) other real property on the assessment rol Is of the for the same
City
-2-
2 of 5
FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 09/21/2018 03:35 PM INDEX NO. 250437/2018
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 1 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 09/21/2018
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 sa id 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 i llegal and unlawful in that they were made contrary
to law.
11. The assessments are i Ilegal and unlawfu I in that the property should
have been whol ly 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 fai Is 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 fa i Is to provide adequate notice of an increased
assessment, and unconstitutiona Ily vague in that it fai Is 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 I imitations by
reason of their having effectively granted exemptions from taxation to certain premises.
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 rol Is of
the City of New York are i llegal 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 rol I 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 which
property
is not assessed at a uniform percentage of value required RPTL Section and which
by 305(2)
class is not authori zed by RPTL Section 1802 or the New York State and United States
Constitutions.
17. The assessments are i Ilegal and unlawful in that respondents have
wrongful ly 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.
-3-
3 of 5
FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 09/21/2018 03:35 PM INDEX NO. 250437/2018
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 1 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 09/21/2018
Petitioner'
18. s property has been misclassified as being in class two,
petitioner'
three or four instead of the appropriate class for s property; the class
petitioner' parcel'
designation of s parcel results in an incorrect allocation of the s
assessed valuation between two or more olasses; the or iteria used by respoiidents 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
i Ilegal assessments, petitioner has been aggrieved and wi I I be injured thereby, and wi I I
be compelled to pay more than its proper share of the taxes of the City of New York.
"petitioner"
21. Reference herein to shal I be deemed to include the
petitioner named herein and all of said petitioner's predecessors in interest.
property'
22. The 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 appl ication has been made for the relief herein sought to
this or any other Court or Judge.
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 wi I I result, and that all properties shall be assessed at a uniform
percentage so that said assessments wi 11 not be unequal, and that equality of assessments wi II
result, and so that the assessments not be contrary to law, and so that excessive transition
any
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.
-4-
4 of 5
FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 09/21/2018 03:35 PM INDEX NO. 250437/2018
.
NYSCEF DOC. NO. 1 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 09/21/2018
Borough: MANHATTAN
Petitioner: 345 RIVERSIDE DR. APARTMENT CORP.
SCHEDULE A
For the period con=encing JuIy 1, 2018 and ending June 30, 2019
1 2 3 4 5
Block Lot ASSESSMENT Claimed Value of Land &
1892 32 900,000 4,278,150 I,426,000
Dated: New York, N.Y. 8 2018
® SIGN
Michael o f
Tuchman Korngold Weiss Liebman & Lindemann, LLP
Attorneys for Petitioner
6 East 45th Street
New York, NY 10017
(212) 687·-3747
STATE OF N YORK )
COUNTY OF ) as:
Michael Wolfe, being duly sworn, deposes and says: that depoiiant is Assistant of
Secretary
the petitioner herein; that deponent has read and knows the contents of the foregoing
petition: the same is true of depoilent·s own knowledge, except as to the 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 petitioner is
by
because petitioner is a domestic corporation and depaiieiit is one of its to wit its
officers,
Assistant Secretary.
Sworn to before me this
cÎÔ day of us , 2018
SIGN
Michael of e
Notar
Signs
ENElDA CRESPO
Notary PubHc, State of New York -5-
Registration 801CR8220184
Qualifiedin Richmond Count
Commission Expires May 20. 20 5 of 5
Preview
FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 09/21/2018 03:35 PM INDEX NO. 250437/2018 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 1 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 09/21/2018 Attorney Group No. 2 SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE 0F NEW YORK COUNTY OF NEW YORK ------ - ----- --------------- Index No. 2018 In the Matter of the Application of 345 RIVERSIDE DR. APARTMENT CORP. Borough of: Manhattan PETITION Petitioner, Taxes of 2018-2019 -against- THE TAX COMMISSION 0F THE CITY 0F NEW YORK and THE COMMISSIONER 0F FINANCE OF THE CITY 0F NEW YORK, Respondents. Block Lot Address 1892 32 345 Riverside Drive 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 sti II is a domestic corporation and the Owner of certain real property in the Borough of Manhattan, City of New York, which real property is described in Schedule A annexed hereto and made part of hereof, block by and fot number by which the said property was designated on the tax maps of the of New York City for the fiscal year July 1, 2018 to June 30, 2019. MIDBOR0ZI 1 of 5 FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 09/21/2018 03:35 PM INDEX NO. 250437/2018 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 1 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 09/21/2018 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 detai I in the "3" books kept in the office of said Rea I Property Assessment Bureau as shown in Columns "4" and of Schedule A. 3. Between January 15, 2018 and March 1, 2018, the time that sa id books were open for publ ic 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 al I assessments of real property for taxation in the City of New York. In said appl ication, 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 i I legal ity) 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 "3" "4" the amounts shown in Columns and of Schedule A hereof. 5. Thereafter, the assessment rol Is of the real property subject to taxation in the City of New York for the fiscal year July I, 2018 to June 30, 2019 were prepared, certified and del ivered to the City Counci I of the City of New York in accordance with law, which assessment rol Is contained the sa id assessments upon petitioner' "3" "4" s said real property as shown in Columns and of Schedule A and the City Counci I proceeded thereon for the levying and col lection of taxes. 6. The said assessments are excessive in that (a) the assessed valuation exceeds the fu I I value of the real property. The sum for which the said real property would sel I under ordinary circumstances on the statutory taxable status date is shown as "5" the claimed value in Column of Schedule A. The extent of over-valuation is the actual total assessment specified for each tax lot (Column "4"), less the claimed correct ful I "5" value specified for each tax lot as set forth in Column of Schedule A; (b) the taxable assessed value fa iIs to comply with the limitations of increases in assessed value set forth in Real Property Tax Law Section 1805; (c) said real property fai led to receive al I 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 assessment" that the property fai led to receive a land only "progress as a bui in the lding course of construction pursuant to Administrative Code Section 11-209. 7. Where the subject property is ful ly or partial ly exempt from taxation under RPTL Section 489 and the Administrative Code of the of New 11- City York, Section 243, the assessment has been unlawfully increased in excess of the assessment of the previous existing dwel ling appearing on the assessment rol Is 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 inequal and are ity unequal in that they have been made at a higher proportionate valuation than the assessed va luations of (a) other real property on the assessment rol Is of the for the same City -2- 2 of 5 FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 09/21/2018 03:35 PM INDEX NO. 250437/2018 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 1 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 09/21/2018 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 sa id 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 i llegal and unlawful in that they were made contrary to law. 11. The assessments are i Ilegal and unlawfu I in that the property should have been whol ly 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 fai Is 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 fa i Is to provide adequate notice of an increased assessment, and unconstitutiona Ily vague in that it fai Is 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 I imitations by reason of their having effectively granted exemptions from taxation to certain premises. 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 rol Is of the City of New York are i llegal 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 rol I 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 which property is not assessed at a uniform percentage of value required RPTL Section and which by 305(2) class is not authori zed by RPTL Section 1802 or the New York State and United States Constitutions. 17. The assessments are i Ilegal and unlawful in that respondents have wrongful ly 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. -3- 3 of 5 FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 09/21/2018 03:35 PM INDEX NO. 250437/2018 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 1 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 09/21/2018 Petitioner' 18. s property has been misclassified as being in class two, petitioner' three or four instead of the appropriate class for s property; the class petitioner' parcel' designation of s parcel results in an incorrect allocation of the s assessed valuation between two or more olasses; the or iteria used by respoiidents 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 i Ilegal assessments, petitioner has been aggrieved and wi I I be injured thereby, and wi I I be compelled to pay more than its proper share of the taxes of the City of New York. "petitioner" 21. Reference herein to shal I be deemed to include the petitioner named herein and all of said petitioner's predecessors in interest. property' 22. The 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 appl ication has been made for the relief herein sought to this or any other Court or Judge. 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 wi I I result, and that all properties shall be assessed at a uniform percentage so that said assessments wi 11 not be unequal, and that equality of assessments wi II result, and so that the assessments not be contrary to law, and so that excessive transition any 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. -4- 4 of 5 FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 09/21/2018 03:35 PM INDEX NO. 250437/2018 . NYSCEF DOC. NO. 1 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 09/21/2018 Borough: MANHATTAN Petitioner: 345 RIVERSIDE DR. APARTMENT CORP. SCHEDULE A For the period con=encing JuIy 1, 2018 and ending June 30, 2019 1 2 3 4 5 Block Lot ASSESSMENT Claimed Value of Land & 1892 32 900,000 4,278,150 I,426,000 Dated: New York, N.Y. 8 2018 ® SIGN Michael o f Tuchman Korngold Weiss Liebman & Lindemann, LLP Attorneys for Petitioner 6 East 45th Street New York, NY 10017 (212) 687·-3747 STATE OF N YORK ) COUNTY OF ) as: Michael Wolfe, being duly sworn, deposes and says: that depoiiant is Assistant of Secretary the petitioner herein; that deponent has read and knows the contents of the foregoing petition: the same is true of depoilent·s own knowledge, except as to the 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 petitioner is by because petitioner is a domestic corporation and depaiieiit is one of its to wit its officers, Assistant Secretary. Sworn to before me this cÎÔ day of us , 2018 SIGN Michael of e Notar Signs ENElDA CRESPO Notary PubHc, State of New York -5- Registration 801CR8220184 Qualifiedin Richmond Count Commission Expires May 20. 20 5 of 5