Slewett & Farber v. Board of Assessors of Nassau County

• Decision Date: 07 January 1982
• Citation: 54 N.Y.2d 547,446 N.Y.S.2d 241,430 N.E.2d 1294
• Court: New York Court of Appeals Court of Appeals
• Parties: , 430 N.E.2d 1294 In the Matter of SLEWETT & FARBER, Respondent, v. BOARD OF ASSESSORS OF the COUNTY OF NASSAU et al., Appellants. Attorney-General of the State of New York, Intervenor-Appellant.

Page 241

446 N.Y.S.2d 241

54 N.Y.2d 547, 430 N.E.2d 1294

In the Matter of SLEWETT & FARBER, Respondent, v. BOARD OF ASSESSORS OF the COUNTY OF NASSAU et al., Appellants Attorney-General of the State of New York, Intervenor-Appellant.

Court of Appeals of New York.

Jan. 7, 1982.

Edward G. McCabe, County Atty. (Joshua A. Elkin, Deputy County Atty., of counsel), for appellants.

Adolph Koeppel, Bernard Sommer and William D. Siegel, Mineola, for respondent.

Robert Abrams, Atty. Gen. (John M. Farrar, Asst. Atty. Gen. and Shirley Adelson Siegel, Sol. Gen., of counsel), for intervenor-appellant.

Frederick J. Martin, Bleakley Schmidt, P. C. and Hugh D. Fyfe, White Plains, for Rego Properties Corp., intervenor.

OPINION OF THE COURT

PER CURIAM.

The order of the Appellate Division, 80 A.D.2d 186, 438 N.Y.S.2d 544, should be modified by deleting therefrom declarations as to the constitutionality of former sections 307 and 721 and former subdivision 3 of section 720 of the Real Property Tax Law. Since those statutes have expired during the pendency of this appeal, we do not address the question of their constitutionality. As so modified, the order of the Appellate Division should be affirmed, and the question certified answered in the negative.

As to the status of this action, we agree with the Appellate Division that petitioners have secured an interlocutory judgment. That judgment, having determined that the State equalization rates are appropriate proof of the rate of fractional assessment in Nassau County for the years in question, allows petitioners to proceed to prove that their property has been assessed in excess of that rate by establishing the property's fair market value, against which the predetermined fractional assessment rate will be applied.

Prior to this court's decision in Matter of Hellerstein v. Assessor of Town of Islip, 37 N.Y.2d 1, 371 N.Y.S.2d 388, 332 N.E.2d 279, fractional assessment was a common practice. In that case, we held that section 306 of the Real Property Tax Law required all property be assessed at full value. In the wake of that decision, the Legislature passed several provisions allowing local taxing authorities to continue fractionalized assessments while they conducted the physical revaluation of real property that would be necessary to implement full value assessment. Since our decision in Hellerstein was specifically prospective in its application and because the Legislature subsequently suspended the requirements of full valuation for those taxing districts undergoing revaluation, assessments for the years in question could continue to be challenged, as in the past, on the ground that the assessments were unequal. Special Term, pursuant to the provisions of section 307 of the Real Property Tax Law, then in effect, found that Nassau County was not required to comply with the requirements of full valuation for the years in question, 1965-1966 through 1977-1978. It further determined that the applicable ratio between assessed and full value, for the purposes of this proceeding, was the State equalization rate. Since section 307 has expired during the pendency of this appeal, we only pass on whether the State equalization rates could be used in this proceeding as proof of the ratio between assessed value and full value.

In addition to the legislative provisions deferring application of our decision in Hellerstein, the Legislature, in related action, also enacted an amendment of subdivision 3 of section 720 ¹ and a new SECTION 721 OF THE REAL PROPERTY TAX LAW² which substantially limited the use of State equalization rates to establish assessment ratios in inequality review proceedings which had been approved in Guth Realty v. Gingold, 34 N.Y.2d 440, 358 N.Y.S.2d 367, 315 N.E.2d 441. The hearing and decision at Special Term in this case preceded these legislative enactments. The enactments had become effective, however, and were considered on the cross appeals to the Appellate Division. Now, again, in consequence of their expiration these enactments have no application to the case as it stands before us on the present appeal. Accordingly, we review the determination at the Appellate Division on the basis of the statutory and case law now in effect, and hold that under the applicable common law, the determination that the State equalization rate was the appropriate ratio between assessed value and full value was correct. (Guth Realty v. Gingold, 34 N.Y.2d 440, 358 N.Y.S.2d 367, 315 N.E.2d 441, supra. )

Such a tax review...