New York Law Review

Tag: Property Assessment

  • Matter of Malta Town Ctr. I, Ltd. v. Town of Malta Bd. of Assessment Review, 3 N.Y.3d 550 (2004): Annual Reassessment as Evidence of Revaluation

    Matter of Malta Town Ctr. I, Ltd. v. Town of Malta Bd. of Assessment Review, 3 N.Y.3d 550 (2004)

    Proof of an annual reassessment pursuant to the state reassessment aid program under RPTL 1573 is evidence that there has been “a revaluation or update of all real property on the assessment roll” for the purposes of RPTL 727 (2) (a).

    Summary

    This case concerns whether a town’s annual reassessment of properties, conducted under the state’s RPTL 1573 program, qualifies as a “revaluation or update” under RPTL 727, which would allow the town to adjust property assessments within a three-year period despite a prior court order. The Court of Appeals held that it does. Town Centre, challenged its 2002 assessment, arguing it violated RPTL 727. The Town argued its reassessment program met the exception. The Court of Appeals reversed the lower courts, holding that participation in the RPTL 1573 program is evidence of a qualifying revaluation or update under RPTL 727, thus allowing the town to adjust the assessment. The matter was remitted to the Supreme Court to determine the accuracy of the assessment.

    Facts

    Town Centre previously challenged its property tax assessments for 1998-2001, which was resolved by a stipulation in December 2001, reducing the assessment to $7,800,000. The stipulation was subject to RPTL 727, limiting changes for three years. In April 2002, the Town of Malta, participating in an annual reassessment program under RPTL 1573, notified Town Centre that its assessed valuation had been increased to $9,750,000. Town Centre challenged this increase, citing RPTL 727.

    Procedural History

    Town Centre initiated a tax certiorari proceeding challenging the 2002 assessment. Town Centre moved for summary judgment, arguing the assessor failed to conduct a proper revaluation or update in compliance with RPTL 727 and sought to reduce the assessed value to $7,800,000. The Board cross-moved to strike Town Centre’s section 727 causes of action, submitting an affidavit from the Town Assessor. Supreme Court granted Town Centre’s motion and denied the Board’s cross-motion. The Appellate Division affirmed. The Court of Appeals granted leave to appeal.

    Issue(s)

    Whether proof of an annual reassessment pursuant to the state reassessment aid program under RPTL 1573 is evidence that there has been “a revaluation or update of all real property on the assessment roll” for the purposes of RPTL 727 (2) (a)?

    Holding

    Yes, because the language of RPTL 1573 and related regulations make clear that reassessment, revaluation, and update have the same meaning for the purposes of both RPTL 727 and RPTL 1573. Additionally, the legislative history supports this conclusion.

    Court’s Reasoning

    The Court focused on statutory interpretation, emphasizing the plain language of RPTL 727 and RPTL 1573. RPTL 727 provides a three-year respite from changes in assessed valuation after a court order, with exceptions, including a “revaluation or update of all real property on the assessment roll” (RPTL 727 [2] [a]). The Court referenced RPTL 102 (12-a), which defines “revaluation,” “reassessment,” or “update” as a systematic review to comply with RPTL 305 (2) (uniform percentage of value). The Court stated that the purpose of the three-year respite was to reduce successive suits challenging assessments, but the town-wide revaluation is a specific exception to that rule. RPTL 1573 authorizes state aid for municipalities that maintain current assessment rolls at a uniform percentage of market value. The Court found the language of RPTL 1573 and its regulations equivalent to the language in RPTL 727. The Court cited the legislative history behind RPTL 102 (12-a) indicating that a consistent definition of these terms was intended. Moreover, the requirements for annual reassessment under RPTL 1573 are as, or more, stringent than those for a “revaluation or update” under RPTL 727 (2) (a). The Court concluded that the Assessor’s affidavit and ORPS documents provided sufficient evidence of compliance with RPTL 1573, defeating Town Centre’s summary judgment motion.

  • Nolan v. Bureau of Assessors of the City of New York, 31 N.Y.2d 91 (1972): Burden of Proof in Special Assessment Challenges

    Nolan v. Bureau of Assessors of the City of New York, 31 N.Y.2d 91 (1972)

    Property owners challenging special assessments bear the burden of proving that their properties did not benefit from the improvement or that the assessment is otherwise invalid.

    Summary

    This case concerns a challenge by property owners to special assessments levied for a sewer project in the Bronx. The property owners argued that the work constituted non-assessable repair and maintenance, or that they did not benefit from the capital improvement. The Court of Appeals reversed the lower court’s decision in favor of the property owners, holding that a presumption of validity attaches to such assessments. The Court emphasized that the petitioning property owners failed to provide affirmative proof that their properties did not benefit from the sewer project or that the assessment was improper. The Court also addressed arguments regarding due process and the timeliness of the assessments, ultimately finding them unpersuasive.

    Facts

    The Conner Street Sewer Project was a 16-year program involving 46 contracts for sewer construction in the northeast Bronx. The project included lateral sewers initiated by property owner petitions and trunk lines initiated by the borough president. The total cost was $11,281,065.95, with approximately 28% assessed against 22,875 properties deemed to benefit. The petitioners, 561 property owners, were assessed on an “indirect benefit” basis and located south of Gun Hill Road. They challenged the assessments, arguing they didn’t benefit and the work was repair, not improvement.

    Procedural History

    Following the assessment, property owners filed objections, which were heard at a public hearing. The special term ruled in favor of the petitioners, vacating the assessments. The Appellate Division affirmed. The City appealed to the New York Court of Appeals.

    Issue(s)

    1. Whether the special assessments against the petitioners’ properties were properly vacated.

    2. Whether the work done by the city constituted nonassessable repair and maintenance or a capital improvement.

    3. Whether the petitioners were benefited by the improvement and thus subject to the assessments.

    4. Whether the assessments were timely, considering the five-year gap after project completion.

    5. Whether the petitioners were denied due process in the hearing process.

    Holding

    1. No, because the petitioners failed to overcome the presumption of validity attached to the assessments by providing affirmative proof that they did not benefit from the sewer project or that the assessment was improper.

    2. Not definitively answered, but the court indicated that replacing sewers with larger capacity pipes could be an assessable improvement, shifting the burden to the petitioners to prove otherwise.

    3. No, the lower courts ruling that they were not benefitted was in error as the petitioners failed to overcome the presumption that they did benefit.

    4. Yes, the delay was not unreasonable, especially given the scope of the project and the number of parcels involved, and the language of the charter indicated assessment within one year was not mandatory.

    5. No, the hearings, despite being associated with concerns about the Co-Op City complex, afforded adequate opportunity to be heard and present evidence.

    Court’s Reasoning

    The court reasoned that a presumption of validity attaches to special assessments, and the burden rests on the objectors to overcome this presumption with affirmative proof. The court found the petitioners failed to demonstrate that their properties did not benefit from the sewer project or that the work constituted non-assessable repair and maintenance. The court stated, “There is a reluctance on the part of the courts to interfere with a determination of the assessing authority given the attendant difficulties of the review…The result is to furnish a presumption in favor of its validity and cast the burden on the objectants to overcome the presumption by affirmative proof”. The court dismissed the argument regarding the delay in making the assessments, citing prior cases upholding similar delays and noting the charter’s language indicated that assessment within one year was not mandatory. The court also rejected the due process argument, finding that the hearings afforded adequate opportunity to be heard. The court distinguished this case from Riverview Estates v. City of New York, where summary judgment was granted because the plaintiffs had met their burden of showing that the work was repair of leaking conditions, whereas in the instant case, the petitioners admitted lack of specific knowledge of the work involved.