5 N.Y.3d 36 (2005)
A town lacks the legal capacity to challenge a segment special equalization rate set by the New York State Board of Real Property Services for another municipality within the same school district, as the relevant statute (RPTL 1218) expressly limits such challenges to the municipality for which the rate was established.
Summary
The Town of Riverhead challenged a segment special equalization rate granted to the Town of Southampton by the New York State Board of Real Property Services, arguing it unfairly shifted the school tax burden. The New York Court of Appeals held that Riverhead lacked the legal capacity to bring the challenge. The court relied on Real Property Tax Law (RPTL) § 1218, which explicitly allows only the municipality for which the equalization rate was established to initiate such a legal action. This decision underscores the principle that governmental entities’ right to sue is limited to powers expressly granted or necessarily implied by statute.
Facts
The Riverhead Central School District encompasses portions of the Towns of Riverhead, Southampton, and Brookhaven. Southampton applied for a segment special equalization rate, asserting that residential properties within the Riverhead Central School District segment were assessed at a higher percentage of market value compared to other areas of Southampton. The State Office of Real Property Services (ORPS) agreed, recommending a segment special equalization rate of 3.01% for the Southampton segment within the Riverhead school district, while Southampton’s general equalization rate was 2.37%. The State Board approved the special rate, which decreased Southampton’s tax levy share by 17.9% and increased the shares for Brookhaven and Riverhead by 4.3%.
Procedural History
Riverhead initially filed a CPLR Article 78 proceeding in Supreme Court, which was dismissed for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. Riverhead then commenced an Article 78 proceeding in the Appellate Division. The Appellate Division dismissed the proceeding, holding that Riverhead lacked capacity and standing to sue. Riverhead appealed to the New York Court of Appeals.
Issue(s)
Whether a town that is part of a school district has the legal capacity to contest the segment special equalization rate set by the State Board of Real Property Services for another municipality in the same school district, given the limitations outlined in RPTL 1218.
Holding
No, because RPTL 1218 specifically limits the capacity to challenge the State Board’s determination to the municipality “for which the rate or rates were established.”
Court’s Reasoning
The Court of Appeals affirmed the Appellate Division’s decision, emphasizing that a governmental entity’s right to sue must be derived from enabling legislation or a concrete statutory predicate. The Court focused on RPTL 1218, which authorizes judicial review of state equalization rates and explicitly allows only the “county, city, town or village for which the rate or rates were established” to commence such an action. The court interpreted “rates” to encompass segment special equalization rates, finding they are a subset of state equalization rates. The Court reasoned that because RPTL 1218 specifically limits the capacity to challenge the State Board’s determination to the municipality for which the rate was established, Riverhead lacked the legal authority to challenge Southampton’s segment special equalization rate. The court applied the statutory interpretation principle that “where a law expressly describes a particular act, thing or person to which it shall apply, an irrefutable inference must he drawn that what is omitted or not included was intended to be omitted or excluded.” In essence, the legislature’s explicit limitation in RPTL 1218 prevented the court from inferring capacity for other municipalities to sue. Because the Court determined Riverhead lacked the capacity to sue, it did not address the issue of standing.