St. Lawrence Cnty. v. City of Ogdensburg

• Decision Date: 11 August 2022
• Docket Number: 534539
• Citation: 208 A.D.3d 929,173 N.Y.S.3d 355
• Parties: In the Matter of ST. LAWRENCE COUNTY et al., Appellants, v. CITY OF OGDENSBURG et al., Respondents, et al., Respondents.
• Court: New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division

208 A.D.3d 929

173 N.Y.S.3d 355

In the Matter of ST. LAWRENCE COUNTY et al., Appellants,

v.CITY OF OGDENSBURG et al., Respondents, et al., Respondents.

534539

Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Third Department, New York.

Calendar Date: May 26, 2022

Decided and Entered: August 11, 2022

Stephen D. Button, County Attorney, Canton (Alan J. Pierce of Hancock Estabrook LLP, Syracuse, of counsel), for appellants.

Coughlin & Gerhart LLP, Binghamton (Nicholas S. Cortese of counsel), for City of Ogdensburg and others, respondents.

Before: Garry, P.J., Lynch, Aarons, Reynolds Fitzgerald and Ceresia, JJ.

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER

Lynch, J. Appeal from an order and judgment of the Supreme Court (Farley, J.), entered December 13, 2021 in St. Lawrence County, which, in a combined proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78, action for declaratory judgment and plenary action, among other things, partially dismissed petitioners’ application to declare City of Ogdensburg Local Law No. 2–2021 null and void.

In September 2021, respondent City of Ogdensburg enacted Local Law No. 2–2021 (hereinafter Local Law No. 2), effective January 1, 2022 (City of Ogdensburg Local Law No. 2–2021 § 6), amending the City charter "to relinquish the City's tax foreclosure responsibility with the intent of all foreclosure responsibility defaulting to [petitioner] St. Lawrence County" (City of Ogdensburg Local Law No. 2–2021). Specifically, Local Law No. 2 provided that "[t]he County shall be responsible for the enforcement of delinquent City taxes in accordance with [RPTL article 11]" (City of Ogdensburg Local Law No. 2–2021 § 2 [amending City of Ogdensburg Charter § C–80]), and is required to "credit the City with the amount of such unpaid delinquent taxes" (City of Ogdensburg Local Law No. 2–2021 § 3 [amending City of Ogdensburg Charter § C–81]). The City also relieved itself of its prior obligation to collect and remit County taxes (see City of Ogdensburg Local Law No. 2–2021 § 4 [deleting City of Ogdensburg Charter § C–83]).

Petitioners thereafter commenced this combined proceeding/action seeking, among other relief, a declaration that Local Law No. 2 violates the N.Y. Constitution and various statutory provisions, including N.Y. Constitution, article IX, § 2 (d) and Municipal Home Rule Law § 10(5), which both prohibit a local government from adopting local laws that "impair the powers" of any other local government. After joinder of issue and certain motion practice, Supreme Court ultimately issued a declaration in favor of the City. Having found the enactment valid, the court dismissed petitioners’ CPLR article 78 claims, which generally sought to compel the City to repeal or refrain from enforcing same. Petitioners appeal.¹

We affirm. RPTL article 11, adopted in 1993, is designated the "Uniform Delinquent Tax Enforcement Act" and outlines a statutory scheme for the enforcement and collection of delinquent real property taxes at the local level ( RPTL 1100 et seq. ; see L 1993, ch 602; Matter of City of Schenectady [Permaul], 201 A.D.3d 1, 7–8, 158 N.Y.S.3d 279 [2021], appeal dismissed and lv. denied 38 N.Y.3d 994, 168 N.Y.S.3d 2, 188 N.E.3d 128 [2022] ). The provisions of RPTL article 11 apply to, among other things, all counties and cities in the state "and shall supersede any inconsistent general, special or local law" ( RPTL 1104[1] ), except where a county or city opted out pursuant to RPTL 1104(2). As pertinent here, RPTL 1104(2) authorized a city, which was enforcing the collection of delinquent taxes pursuant to its charter prior to January 1, 1993, to continue such enforcement provided it adopted a local law, no later than July 1, 1994, opting to do so. The City did so pursuant to City of Ogdensburg Local Law No. 3–1994. As a result, "the collection of taxes in such ... [C]ity ... shall continue to be enforced pursuant to such charter ... as such charter ... may from time to time be amended " ( RPTL 1104[2] [emphasis added]).

Under RPTL article 11, the "[e]nforcing officer" refers to the "officer of any tax district empowered or charged by law to enforce the collection of tax liens on real property" ( RPTL 1102[3] ). Pertinent here, "where no law provides otherwise, the enforcing officer shall be (i) in a county which is a tax district, the county treasurer ..., [and] (ii) in a city which is a tax district, the official so empowered or charged by the city charter" ( RPTL 1102[3][a] ). Correspondingly, a "[t]ax district" includes a county or "a city, other than a city for which the county enforces delinquent taxes pursuant to the city charter" ( RPTL 1102[6][a], [b] ). Read together, as between a county and a city, the county treasurer serves as the enforcement officer unless the city charter provides otherwise.

RPTL article 9 pertains to the "[l]evy and [c]ollection of [t]axes" (see RPTL 900 et seq. ). By definition, a " ‘[d]elinquent tax’ means an unpaid tax ... on behalf of a municipal corporation ... relating to any parcel which is included in the return of unpaid delinquent taxes prepared pursuant to [ RPTL 936 ]" ( RPTL 1102[2] ). All taxes levied upon a parcel of real property become a lien on that property as of January 1 of the fiscal year for which the taxes have been levied (see RPTL 902 ; 1102[4]). Prior to the start of a fiscal year, the county legislative body must "annex to or ... file with the assessment roll of each city and town a warrant ... authorizing and directing the collecting officer of the city or town to collect" the sums due the county ( RPTL 904[1] ). Once the warrant is so annexed or filed, the city's assessment roll "become[s] the tax roll" ( RPTL 904[1] ). In that process, the "collecting officer" of a city is required to receive the taxes paid ( RPTL 924[1] ). For taxes that remain unpaid by the end of the fiscal year in question, a city "collecting officer shall make and deliver to the county treasurer an account ... of all taxes listed on the tax roll which remain unpaid, ... [and t]he county treasurer shall, if satisfied that such account is correct, credit him [or her] with the amount of such unpaid delinquent taxes" ( RPTL 936[1] [emphasis added]). In effect, where the county treasurer is statutorily required to serve as enforcing officer, the city would be made whole upon the return and the county would assume the responsibility of enforcement.

By adopting Local Law No. 2, the City amended its charter by deleting the provisions requiring the City to enforce the payment of delinquent taxes, leaving the County with that obligation under RPTL article 11. The City was statutorily authorized to do so pursuant to RPTL 1104(2), which recognizes that a city charter "may from time to time be amended." As a consequence of the amendment, the City is no longer a "tax district" for purposes of RPTL article 11 (see RPTL 1102[6] ) and the County treasurer becomes the enforcing officer (see RPTL 1102[3][a][i] ). As such, the County treasurer is statutorily required to credit the City for unpaid delinquent taxes upon the return at the end of the fiscal year (see RPTL 936 ). This outcome is neither an expansion nor impairment of the County's powers but simply a consequence of the statutory structure outlined in RPTL articles 9 and 11. For this reason, we affirm Supreme Court's decision upholding the validity of Local Law No. 2.

Aarons and Reynolds Fitzgerald, JJ., concur.

( Garry, P.J., dissenting.)

The Real Property Tax Law has been aptly described as a "byzantine statutory scheme" ( Matter of Town of Irondequoit v. County of Monroe, 36 N.Y.3d 177, 182, 139 N.Y.S.3d 609, 163 N.E.3d 477 [2020] ). Against this backdrop, the majority here errs in relying upon and applying the provisions set forth in RPTL article 9; these provisions were not discussed by the parties in this manner because they do not govern this dispute. Although it is true that, pursuant to RPTL 936, counties must "guarantee" and credit a collecting officer with "certain ‘unpaid delinquent taxes’ " ( id. at 180, 139 N.Y.S.3d 609, 163 N.E.3d 477 ), the warrant subject to RPTL article 9 procedure is a county warrant (see RPTL 904[1] ). Counties generally have no authority to assess real property – that power has traditionally been delegated to cities, towns and villages (see Foss v. City of Rochester, 104 A.D.2d 99, 106, 481 N.Y.S.2d 191 [1984], affd 65 N.Y.2d 247, 491 N.Y.S.2d 128, 480 N.E.2d 717 [1985] ). "Because counties do not have their own assessors, the Real Property Tax Law provides that they shall base their taxes on the assessment rolls prepared by the city and town assessors" ( id. [emphasis added and footnote omitted]; see RPTL 900 ). "The assessment roll of each city and town, at the time the county's warrant is annexed thereto, becomes the county tax roll which is then returned to the assessing unit for collection. Revenues collected by towns and cities for county purposes are transferred to the county after collection" ( Foss v. City of Rochester, 104 A.D.2d at 106, 481 N.Y.S.2d 191 [internal citations omitted and emphasis added]).

Here, in contrast, it is the City Council of respondent City of Ogdensburg that levies the annual real property tax for the City budget (see City of Ogdensburg Charter § C–70). It is the City Manager – not any official of petitioner St. Lawrence County (compare RPTL 900[1] ; 904[1]) – who signs the tax warrant directing the City Comptroller to collect City taxes (see City of Ogdensburg Charter § C–71). This levy is wholly in line with the City's general powers (see General City Law § 20[4] ; Municipal Home Rule Law § 10[1][ii][a][8] ). Thus, we disagree that RPTL 936 requires the County to make the City whole for uncollected City-levied taxes and therefore operates to shift the responsibility to enforce those delinquent taxes to the County.¹ For the reasons set forth below, we find that the City has erred in attempting to unilaterally impose an obligation upon the County to enforce and guarantee payment of the City tax...