In the Matter of Markus v. Assessors of the Town of Taghkanic

• Decision Date: 22 December 2005
• Docket Number: 97795.
• Citation: 24 A.D.3d 1066,2005 NY Slip Op 09788,806 N.Y.S.2d 295
• Parties: In the Matter of JOHN MARKUS, Appellant, v. ASSESSORS OF THE TOWN OF TAGHKANIC et al., Respondents.
• Court: New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division

24 A.D.3d 1066

806 N.Y.S.2d 295

2005 NY Slip Op 09788

In the Matter of JOHN MARKUS, Appellant, v. ASSESSORS OF THE TOWN OF TAGHKANIC et al., Respondents.

97795.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York, Third Department.

December 22, 2005.

Appeal from a judgment of the Supreme Court (Stein, J.), entered November 23, 2004 in Columbia County, which, inter alia, in a proceeding pursuant to RPTL article 7, granted respondents' motion for summary judgment dismissing the petition.

CREW III, J.P.

Petitioner owns seven parcels of real property located in the Town of Taghkanic, Columbia County. In July 2002, petitioner commenced the instant proceeding pursuant to RPTL article 7 to challenge the assessments of those parcels on the 2002 tax rolls, contending that such assessments were, among other things, unequal and excessive. The petition subsequently was amended to eliminate the excessive taxation claim, and petitioner proceeded on the ground of inequality. Respondents then moved to dismiss the petition pursuant to CPLR 3211 (a) (7) and for summary judgment pursuant to CPLR 3212, and petitioner cross-moved for summary judgment. Supreme Court granted respondents' motion for summary judgment and denied petitioner's cross motion, prompting this appeal.

We affirm. "Assessment review proceedings involving the issue of inequality are limited to determining whether the property at issue has been assessed at a different percentage of its full value than other properties within the same taxing unit" (Matter of Consolidated Edison Co. of N.Y. v. State Bd. of Real Prop. Servs., 255 AD2d 8, 10 [1999] [citation omitted]). Thus, in a proceeding such as this, the petitioner must establish both the level of assessment for the entire community and the fair market value of the property under review. To that end, RPTL 720 limits the acceptable methods via which an assessment may be proven to be unequal and includes, insofar as is relevant to this appeal, proof of "actual sales of real property within the assessing units that occurred during the year in which the assessment under review was made" (RPTL 720 [3] [b] [2]).

The dispute here centers upon the construction given to the phrase "during the year in which the assessment under review was made." Petitioner, interpreting the phrase literally, submitted a sales ratio study of "all arms-length real property sales that occurred in the town between January 1, 2002 and December 31, 2002" to demonstrate the inequality of his 2002 assessment. Respondents' expert, on the other hand, reasoning that "[t]he sales to be considered in an inequality sales-assessment ratio study must be the same sales that could have been considered by the assessor for the completion of the applicable assessment roll," based his analysis upon sales that occurred during 2001.

To be sure, the rules governing statutory construction and interpretation require us to afford the words contained within a particular statute their plain and ordinary meaning (see Matter of New York State Elec. & Gas Corp. v. Public Serv. Commn. of...