MICHAEL L. D'AMATO, and LOIS R. D'AMATO v. CITY OF ATLANTIC CITY

NOT FOR PUBLICATION WITHOUT THE
               APPROVAL OF THE APPELLATE DIVISION

                                     SUPERIOR COURT OF NEW JERSEY
                                     APPELLATE DIVISION
                                     DOCKET NO. A-4297-08T2


MICHAEL L. D'AMATO, and
LOIS R. D'AMATO,

    Plaintiffs-Appellants,

         v.

CITY OF ATLANTIC CITY,

    Defendant-Respondent.

____________________________

         Submitted January 12, 2010 - Decided January 27, 2010

         Before Judges Fuentes and Gilroy.

         On appeal from the Tax Court of New Jersey,
         Docket No. 011508-2008.

         Michael L. D'Amato    and     Lois   L.   D'Amato,
         appellants pro se.

         Richard   M.  Conley, LLC,  attorneys for
         respondent (Richard M. Conley, of counsel
         and on the brief).

PER CURIAM

    Taxpayers Michael L. D'Amato and Lois L. D'Amato appeal

from the April 24, 2009 order of the Tax Court that affirmed the

judgment of the Atlantic County Board of Taxation (the Board),

regarding the 2008 assessment on their residential condominium

in the City of Atlantic City (City).    We affirm.

    Taxpayers        are       the     owners           of    a     high-rise       residential

penthouse condominium unit in the Ocean Club Condominium located

at 3101 Boardwalk, and known as Block 28, Lot 397, Unit C3404,

in the City.        In 2007, the City engaged Certified Valuations,

Inc., to conduct a revaluation of all properties within the

City.     Certified           determined          the    fair       market    value        of   the

taxpayers' condominium unit as of October 1, 2007, effective for

the 2008 tax year, as $1,076,200 (land assessment of $850,000;

improvements assessment of $226,200).

    On March 7, 2008, because taxpayers were unable to obtain

answers as to how Certified reached its valuation, taxpayers

filed an appeal with the Board seeking to reduce the assessment.

On June 2, 2008, the Board entered a Memorandum of Judgment,

affirming     the    City's          assessment.               On    September        4,    2008,

taxpayers filed an appeal with the Tax Court.                                     On April 15,

2009,   following        a    trial    in    the        matter,      the    Tax     Court   judge

rendered an oral decision affirming the judgment of the Board,

determining    taxpayers             had    not       overcome        the    presumption         of

correctness    that          attaches       to    a     municipality's            original      tax

assessment.         On       April    24,        2009,       the    Tax     Court    entered      a

confirming judgment.

    On appeal, taxpayers argue that the Tax Court erred in

determining    they          had   failed        to     overcome      the     presumption        of




                                                                                        A-4297-08T2
                                                  2

correctness of the local tax assessment, contending that they

had presented definite, positive and certain evidence, in both

quantity and quality, establishing the fair market assessment of

their condominium unit as $421,949.49.

    The     scope    of    appellate        review    from     a    Tax        Court

determination "is the same as              that applicable to a non-jury

determination of any other trial court."                125 Monitor St. v.

Jersey City, 
23 N.J. Tax 9, 13 (App. Div. 2005).                         "[J]udges

presiding in the Tax Court have special expertise; for that

reason their findings will not be disturbed unless they are

plainly arbitrary or there is a lack of substantial credible

evidence   to   support   them."       Alpine    Country     Club   v.    Bor.   of

Demarest, 
354 N.J. Super. 387, 390 (App. Div. 2002) (quoting

Glenpointe Assoc. v. Twp. of Teaneck, 
241 N.J. Super. 37, 46

(App. Div.), certif. denied, 
122 N.J. 391 (1990)).

    Principles      governing   real       property   tax   appeals      are   well

settled.

           On appeal, a municipality's original tax
           assessment is entitled to a presumption of
           validity.   The presumption attaches to the
           quantum of the tax assessment.      Based on
           this presumption, the appealing taxpayer has
           the burden of proving that the assessment is
           erroneous.   The presumption in favor of the
           taxing authority can be rebutted only by
           cogent evidence, a proposition that has been
           long   settled.      The  strength   of  the
           presumption is exemplified by the nature of
           the evidence that is required to overcome


                                                                          A-4297-08T2
                                       3

            it.     That evidence must be definite,
            positive and certain in quality and quantity
            to overcome the presumption.

            [Pantasote Co. v. City of Passaic, 
100 N.J.
            408, 412-13 (1985) (internal quotations and
            citations omitted).]

The same presumption of validity is accorded to the judgment of

a County Board of Taxation "when it is the determination of that

body that is challenged before the Tax Court."                Byram Twp. v.

Western World, Inc., 
111 N.J. 222, 235 (1988).

    We     have   considered    taxpayers'    argument   in   light    of    the

record and applicable law.            We conclude that their argument is

without    sufficient   merit    to    warrant   discussion   in   a   written

            R. 2:11-3(e)(1)(E).          We affirm substantially for the
opinion.

reasons expressed by Judge Small in his oral decision of April

15, 2009.    R. 2:11-3(e)(1)(A).

    Affirmed.




                                                                       A-4297-08T2
                                        4