Matter of 860 Fifth Ave. Corp. v. Tax Comm’n of City of New York, 8 N.Y.2d 29 (1960)
r
r
In tax assessment review proceedings, while the state equalization rate is admissible, it is insufficient on its own to prove inequality; taxpayers must also present evidence of assessed value of comparable properties.
r
r
Summary
r
This case addresses whether a taxpayer can prove unequal assessment solely by presenting the State equalization rate, or whether additional evidence is needed. The New York Court of Appeals held that while the State equalization rate is admissible, it is insufficient on its own to establish inequality. The Court reasoned that relying solely on the equalization rate would circumvent the statutory requirement of selecting comparable parcels for assessment comparison and would allow the state board’s administrative decision to bind the court without a proper factual inquiry. The Court emphasized that the selection of sample parcels and their evaluation constitutes the core of an inequality trial. The order of the Appellate Division was reversed, and the original assessments were reinstated.
r
r
Facts
r
The petitioners initiated proceedings to review real estate tax assessments in the Town of Mamaroneck and the Village of Larchmont. The tax districts stipulated to the State rates of equalization for certain years. The petitioners argued they had proven inequality through notices to admit, the equalization rate, and stipulations. The tax districts contended they only admitted the fact of the state ratios, not their effect on inequality.
r
r
Procedural History
r
The Special Term’s decision was reversed by the Appellate Division, which found that the stipulation fixed the equalization ratios and the assessments were excessive. The town and village appealed to the New York Court of Appeals. The Court of Appeals reversed the Appellate Division and reinstated the judgment entered at Special Term confirming the assessments.
r
r
Issue(s)
r
1. Whether the stipulations by the tax districts regarding State equalization rates admitted only the fact of the rates or also their effect on the issue of inequality?
r
2. Whether proof of the State equalization rate alone is sufficient to sustain a finding of inequality in a tax assessment review proceeding?
r
r
Holding
r
1. The Court held that the stipulation was an admission of fact as to the State rates of equalization and not a concession of their legal consequence on these assessments.
r
2. No, proof of the State equalization rate alone is insufficient to sustain a finding of inequality in a particular assessment because additional evidence, such as assessed values of comparable properties, is needed to determine if the assessment is unequal.
r
r
Court’s Reasoning
r
The Court determined the tax districts conceded only the fact of the State equalization rates, not their legal consequence. The Court emphasized the importance of a clear record when a public taxing authority makes an admission about assessment inequality.
r
The court reasoned that while the State equalization rate has been made admissible by amendment to the statute (Real Property Tax Law, § 720, subd. 3), it is subject to procedural standards. The statute requires agreement on parcels to be appraised and limits proof on inequality to those parcels and witnesses. The Court cited Matter of Wolf v. Assessors of Town of Hanover, emphasizing that selecting sample parcels and their evaluation constitutes the substance of an inequality trial.
r
Even when admissible, the State equalization rate’s value has guarded acceptance because it