MATTER OF ADAMS v. Welch
| Decision Date | 04 May 2000 |
| Citation | 707 N.Y.S.2d 691,272 A.D.2d 642 |
| Court | New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division |
| Parties | In the Matter of RESZIN ADAMS et al., Respondents,<BR>v.<BR>DONALD E. WELCH et al., Individually and as the Board of Assessment Review of the City of Albany, et al., Appellants. |
This case involves tax reassessments of certain residential properties located in the City of Albany. In 1987, respondents conducted a revaluation of properties situated in six areas, which resulted in substantial increases in the assessed value of petitioners' respective properties. Petitioners thereafter commenced a hybrid CPLR article 78 proceeding and civil action alleging, inter alia, that the City unfairly and unconstitutionally targeted their neighborhoods for tax reassessment.[*] At the conclusion of a trial held before a Referee, the methodology employed by the assessor was found to be unlawful. The Referee recommended a rollback of petitioners' tax assessments and indicated that petitioners were entitled to refunds, with interest thereon. Supreme Court confirmed the Referee's report and respondents now appeal.
Real property must be assessed at a "uniform percentage of value" (RPTL 305 [2]) and although there is no particular statutory methodology for determining the value of residential property, the method undertaken must result in a "fair and realistic value of the property involved so that all property owners contribute equitably to the public fisc" (Matter of Allied Corp. v Town of Camillus, 80 NY2d 351, 356; see, Matter of Commerce Holding Corp. v Board of Assessors, 88 NY2d 724, 729). Hence, when assessing property, factors which affect the property's marketability are to be considered (see, Matter of Commerce Holding Corp. v Board of Assessors, supra, at 729).
The Commissioner of Assessment and Taxation for the City acknowledged that his assessment was merely based on a visual inspection of the exterior of the buildings at issue and a review of the average sales price of homes in the particular neighborhood. Specifically, the Commissioner calculated an average sales price for properties recently sold in a given neighborhood and applied that market value to the reassessed properties, without ascertaining the comparative size of the structures, the condition of or improvements made to the homes, the square footage of any units in the buildings or the operating expenses of the income-producing properties, notwithstanding his admission that it was customary to consider such factors. We find that the record contains sufficient support for the Referee's comprehensive analysis and determination that the methodology utilized by the assessor did not take into account the appropriate market value of the individual properties that were assessed. Under these circumstances, we conclude that respondents failed to meet the requirements of the Real Property Tax Law. Additionally, respondents' "selective reassessment" was not rationally based and, therefore, was improper (see, Matter of Towne House Vil. Condominium v Assessor of Town of Islip, 200 AD2d 749, 750, lv denied 84 NY2d 802; Matter of Mundinger v Assessor of City of Rye, 187 AD2d 594, 595).
We reject respondents' contention that the judgment must be reversed as to those petitioners who did not testify at trial. Although only six of the approximately 40 property owners testified, title ownership was not an issue during the proceedings. Moreover, the record manifests the fact that each petitioner either verified the petition or designated counsel to verify the petition, which contained assertions identifying petitioners as the owners of the properties at issue.
Respondents further assert that even if the methodology was flawed, the rollback of tax assessments for petitioners, along with refunds, was legally impermissible. The recovery of damages in a CPLR article 78 proceeding is permitted where they are "incidental to the primary relief sought by the petitioner, and must be such as he might otherwise recover on the same set of facts in a separate action or proceeding suable in the supreme court" (CPLR 7806; see, Matter of Gross v Perales, 72 NY2d 231, 235). Here, the central issue of the proceeding was the constitutionality of the revaluation and the methodology used to...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Doe v. State Univ. of N.Y.
...such a demand is incidental to his success in invalidating the administrative determination (see CPLR 7806 ; Matter of Adams v. Welch, 272 A.D.2d 642, 644, 707 N.Y.S.2d 691 [2000] )."Although courts generally possess the authority to convert a plenary action to a CPLR article 78 proceeding ......
-
City of Troy v. Assessor of Brunswick
...sufficiently pleaded an unlawful selective reassessment claim in the 2014 petition (see generally Matter of Adams v. Welch, 272 A.D.2d 642, 642–643, 707 N.Y.S.2d 691 [2000] ; Matter of Xerox Corp. v. Sanger, 104 A.D.2d 720, 721, 480 N.Y.S.2d 651 [1984] ). Next, Supreme Court did not abuse i......
-
Doe v. State Univ. of N.Y.
... ... of sexual misconduct in violation of a university's ... student code (see e.g. Matter of Alexander M. v ... Cleary, 188 A.D.3d 1471, 1473 [2020]; Matter of Haug ... v State ... administrative determination (see CPLR 7806; ... Matter of Adams v Welch, 272 A.D.2d 642, 644 ... [2000]) ... "Although ... courts ... ...
-
Sullivan Farms II, Inc. v. Assessor of the Town of Mamakating
...N.Y.S.2d 95 [2002], appeal dismissed and lv. denied 100 N.Y.2d 532, 761 N.Y.S.2d 593, 791 N.E.2d 958 [2003] ; Matter of Adams v. Welch , 272 A.D.2d 642, 643, 707 N.Y.S.2d 691 [2000] ). "[T]he creation of different classes for purposes of taxation is permissible as long as the classification......