Way v. City of Beacon

• Decision Date: 13 June 2012
• Citation: 947 N.Y.S.2d 531,96 A.D.3d 829,2012 N.Y. Slip Op. 04737
• Parties: Lawrence WAY, etc., et al., respondents, v. CITY OF BEACON, et al., appellants.
• Court: New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division

96 A.D.3d 829

947 N.Y.S.2d 531

2012 N.Y. Slip Op. 04737

Lawrence WAY, etc., et al., respondents,

v.CITY OF BEACON, et al., appellants.

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

June 13, 2012.

Keane & Beane, P.C., White Plains, N.Y. (Judson K. Siebert and Town, Ryan & Partners, P.C. [Elena DeFio Kean], former of counsel on the brief), for appellants.

Robert N. Isseks, Middletown, N.Y., Bloom & Bloom, P.C., New Windsor, N.Y. (Kevin D. Bloom of counsel), and Drake, Loeb, Heller, Kennedy, Gogerty, Gaba & Rodd, PLLC, New Windsor, N.Y. (Timothy P. McElduff, Jr., of counsel), for respondents (one brief filed).

MARK C. DILLON, J.P., RANDALL T. ENG, LEONARD B. AUSTIN, and SANDRA L. SGROI, JJ.

In an action for a judgment pursuant to 42 USC § 1983 declaring that the defendants' practice of intentionally miscalculating nonhomestead real property taxes deprives the plaintiffs of their due process and equal protection rights under color of state law, to recover damages pursuant to 42 USC § 1983 for the deprivation of the plaintiffs' due process and equal protection rights under color of state law, and to recover the overpayment of real property taxes, the defendants appeal, as limited by their brief, from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Dutchess County (Pagones, J.), dated May 17, 2011, as denied those branches of their motion which were pursuant to CPLR 3211(a)(7) to dismiss the amended complaint and pursuant to CPLR 3211(a)(5) to dismiss the amended complaint insofar as asserted against the defendant Joseph Braun as time-barred.

ORDERED that the order is modified, on the law, by deleting the provision thereof denying that branch of the defendants' motion which was pursuant to CPLR 3211(a)(7) to dismiss the second cause of action, which alleged a deprivation of the plaintiffs' equal protection rights under color of state law pursuant to 42 USC § 1983, and substituting therefor a provision granting that branch of the motion; as so modified, the order is affirmed insofar as appealed from, without costs or disbursements.

In December 2009 the plaintiffs, who are fee owners of nonhomestead commercial real property located within the defendantCity of Beacon, commenced this action solely against the City, asserting five causes of action, and seeking repayment of certain real property taxes premised on alleged miscalculations of the tax rates applied to homestead and nonhomestead properties. In a prior order, the Supreme Court directed the dismissal of the original complaint on the ground that all five causes of action set forth therein were time-barred, but granted the plaintiffs leave to amend the complaint, inter alia, to assert causes of action pursuant to 42 USC § 1983, based on alleged violations of their federal constitutional rights to equal protection and due process, and to add former City Administrator Joseph Braun as a party defendant.

Thereafter, on December 30, 2010, the plaintiffs filed a supplemental summons and an amended complaint against the City and Braun, in which they sought, inter alia, damages and declaratory relief pursuant to 42 USC § 1983 for violations of their federal constitutional rights to equal protection and due process. They alleged that, for at least 12 consecutive years, the defendants employed a certain formula to calculate the real property tax rates for homestead and nonhomestead properties which was not authorized by the City Charter or State law. Therefore, they alleged that they were subjected to an unauthorized tax rate. As a result of this unauthorized tax rate, they alleged, nonhomestead property owners overpaid their respective property taxes, while homestead property owners underpaid.

The defendants moved, inter alia, pursuant to CPLR 3211(a)(7) to dismiss the amended complaint, inter alia, for failure to state a cause of action under 42 USC § 1983, and pursuant to CPLR 3211(a)(5) to dismiss the amended complaint insofar as asserted against Braun as time-barred. The plaintiffs cross-moved for leave to enter a default judgment against the defendants. The Supreme Court denied both the City's motion and the plaintiffs' cross motion.

On a motion to dismiss a complaint pursuant to CPLR 3211(a)(7), the complaint is to be afforded a liberal construction ( seeCPLR 3026). The facts alleged are presumed to be true, the plaintiff is afforded the benefit of every favorable inference, and the court is to determine only whether the facts as alleged fit within any cognizable legal theory ( see AG Capital Funding Partners, L.P. v. State St. Bank & Trust Co., 5 N.Y.3d 582, 591, 808 N.Y.S.2d 573, 842 N.E.2d 471;Goshen v. Mutual Life Ins. Co. of N.Y., 98 N.Y.2d 314, 326, 746 N.Y.S.2d 858, 774 N.E.2d 1190;Landon v. Kroll Lab. Specialists, Inc., 91 A.D.3d 79, 82, 934 N.Y.S.2d 183;Thomas v. LaSalle Bank N.A., 79 A.D.3d 1015, 913 N.Y.S.2d 742;Sonne v. Board of Trustees of Vil. of Suffern, 67 A.D.3d 192, 200, 887 N.Y.S.2d 145). “[E]videntiary material [submitted by the plaintiffs] may be considered to ‘remedy defects in the complaint’ ” ( Dana v. Shopping Time Corp., 76 A.D.3d 992, 994, 908 N.Y.S.2d 114, quoting Rovello v. Orofino Realty Co., 40 N.Y.2d 633, 636, 389 N.Y.S.2d 314, 357 N.E.2d 970;see Zorn v. Gilbert, 60 A.D.3d 850, 850, 875 N.Y.S.2d 245).

Here, the plaintiffs failed to sufficiently allege a deprivation of their right to equal protection. “Subject to constitutional inhibitions, the Legislature has very nearly unconstrained authority in the design of taxing impositions” ( Foss v. City of Rochester, 65 N.Y.2d 247, 257, 491 N.Y.S.2d 128, 480 N.E.2d 717 [internal quotation marks omitted]; see Nash v. Assessor of Town of Southampton, 168 A.D.2d 102, 105, 571 N.Y.S.2d 951). “The integrity of any system of taxation, and particularly real property taxation, rests upon the premise that similarly situated taxpayers pay the same share of the tax burden” ( Foss v. City of Rochester, 65 N.Y.2d at 254, 491 N.Y.S.2d 128, 480 N.E.2d 717). “[T]he creation of different classes for purposes of taxation is permissible as long as the classification is reasonable and the taxes imposed are uniform within the class” ( id. at 256, 491 N.Y.S.2d 128, 480 N.E.2d 717). “[A] tax classification will only violate constitutional equal protection guarantees if the distinction between the classes is palpably arbitrary or amounts to invidious discrimination” ( Nash v. Assessor of Town of Southampton, 168 A.D.2d at 105, 571 N.Y.S.2d 951 [internal quotation marks omitted]; see Terminello v. Village of Piermont, 92 A.D.3d 673, 674, 938 N.Y.S.2d 162;Giovannetti v. Dormitory Auth. of State of N.Y., 115 A.D.2d 851, 853, 495 N.Y.S.2d 805,affd.69 N.Y.2d 621, 511 N.Y.S.2d 227, 503 N.E.2d 692). “[T]he classification of properties as homestead or non-homestead, and the imposition of different tax rates on each, is reasonable” ( Terminello v. Village of Piermont, 92 A.D.3d at 675, 938 N.Y.S.2d 162, citing Foss v. City of Rochester, 65 N.Y.2d at 257, 491 N.Y.S.2d 128, 480 N.E.2d 717).

The purported equal protection violation alleged herein is premised on the classification of...