Matter of Town of Stony Point v State of New York Dept. of Fin.

Annotate this Case
Download PDF
Matter of Town of Stony Point v State of New York Dept. of Fin. 2012 NY Slip Op 31478(U) April 16, 2012 Sup Ct, Albany County Docket Number: 7678-11 Judge: George B. Ceresia Jr Republished from New York State Unified Court System's E-Courts Service. Search E-Courts (http://www.nycourts.gov/ecourts) for any additional information on this case. This opinion is uncorrected and not selected for official publication. [* 1] STATE OF NEW YORK SUPREME COURT COUNTY OF ALBANY In the Matter of the Application of the TOWN OF STONY POINT, TOWN BOARD OF THE TOWN OF STONY POINT, and THE OFFICE OF THE ASSESSOR OF TJ4E TOWN OF STONY POINT, Petitioners-Plaintiffs, For an Order and Judgment Pursuant to CPLR Article 78 and Other Relief Index No, 7678-I. 1. wr NO.01-1 ~ -againstSTATE OF NEW YO= DEPARTMENT OF FINANCE, OFFICE OF REAL PROPERTY SERVICES, THOMAS H. MATTOX, COMMISSIONER OF TAXATION AND FINANCE, and NEW YORK STATE OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL, Respondents-Defendants. Special Term Hon. George B. Ceresia, Jr., Supreme Court Justice Presiding Appearances: FEERICK LYNCH MacCARTNEY, PLLC Attorneys for PetitionersPlahtiffs (Mary E. Marzolla, Esq., Of Counsel) 96 South Broadway P.O. Box 612 South Nyack, New York 10960 ERIC T. SCHNEIDERMAN Attorney General of the State of New York Attorneys for RespondentslDefendants (Douglas J. Goglia, Esq., Of Counsel) The Capitol Albany, New York 12224-0341 ~ ~ 3 2 2 6 [* 2] DECISIONDUDGMENT George B. Ceresia, Jr., Justice In order to apportion tax levies for a school district encompassing more than one municipality, the Real Property Tax Law directs a district superintendentto determine the full valuation of real property for each segment of the municipalities included in the school district by dividing the taxable assessed valuation of the real property in that part of the municipality by the state equalization rate established for the entire municipality (E RPTL 1314[ l][a]). Where a municipality s state equalization rate does not accurately reflect the level of assessment within a particular segment of a school district (thereby resulting in a disproportionate tax burden), the State Board is authorized to calculate a special equalization rate for that segment (E RPTL 1226; 13 14[2]). The State Board may undertake such an adjustment only where there would be at least a 10 percent change in the share of the levy of at least one segment of the taxing jurisdiction as the result of the use of the segment special equalization rate in place of the equalization rate which would otherwise be used for purposes of apportionment (9 NYCRR 5 186-5.5 [a]) (Matter of Town of Riverhead v New York State Bd. of Real Prop. Sews., 5 NY3d 36,39-40 [2005]). In February 20 1 1, petitioner-plaintiff Town of Stony Point submitted an application to respondent Office of Real Property Tax Services (hereinafter OWTS) for a segment special equalization rate pursuant to RPTL 13 14(2). In its application, the Town of Stony Point requested a special equalization rate for that portion of the T o m of Haverstraw that -2- [* 3] Iies within the North Rockland Central School District after reviewing a study, which indicated that residents of the Town of Stony Point paid an average of 17% more in school taxes than their counterparts in the Town of Haverstraw with homes of the same market value LVerified PetitiodCornplaint,Ex. C). O P T S analyzed the application and denied the see Town of Stony Point s request because the figures generated using market value survey data (instead ofthe state equalization rate) resulted in less than a 10% change in the share of the levy of all the segments. More specifically, ORPTS found that the market value method would only result in a 3.4% greater share of taxes for the Town of Haverstraw and a 4.2% smaller share of taxes for the Town of Stony Point lsee Verified PetitionlCumplaint, Ex. A, p. 3). Additionally, ORPTS calculated estimated segment rates using the property type and sales ratio methods, but concluded that these methods would also result in impacts of less than 10% for any one municipality in the North RockIand Central School District (SB Verified PetitiodComplaint, Ex. A, p. 3-4). Thereafter, in December 20 11, petitionerdplaintiffs commenced the instant hybrid CPLR article 78 proceedingldeclaratoryjudgment action, Respondentddefendmtnts moved to dismiss the petitiodcomplaint pursuant to CPLR 321 l(a)(2), (31, f7), and (10). DISCUSSION It is well-settled that [a] legislative enactment must be challenged in an action for a 1 The North Rockland Central School District covers the Town of Stony Point and portions of the Town of Haverstraw. -3- [* 4] declaratoryjudgment with[in] its six-year statute of limitations, while a quasi-legislative act of an administrative agency requires CPLR article 78 review, which has a four-month limitations period (Matter ofFederation of Mental Health Ctrs. v DeBuono, 275 AD2d 557, 559-560 [2000] [internal citations omitted]; see Via Health Home Care, Inc. v New York State Dept. of Health, 33 AD3d 1 100, 1101 [2006]). Here, petitioners five causes of action chdenge, among other things, the constitutionality of respondents 10% rule contained in 9 NYCRR 0 186-5.5(a), which was last mended on April 27,2004, and became effective, as amended, on May 12,2004. Accordingly, irrespective of whether petitioners challenge is viewed i the context of a declaratoryjudgment action, or a CPLR article 78 proceeding, n it must be rejected as untimely because 9 NYCRR 186-5.5, as amended, was promulgated over seven years ago (see CPLR 2 13[ 1 ; 217[11; Via Health Home Care. Inc, v New York 1 State Dept. of Health, 33 AD3d at 1102; Matter of Federation of Mental Health Ctrs. v DeBuono, 275 AD2d at 559, f 2). n To the extent petitioners argue that ORPTS s fmd determination was arbitrary and capricious, and void as against public policy, this Court lacks subject matter jurisdiction. Judicial review of equalization rate determinations is governed by RPTL 1218, which provides, i pertinent part: n A final determination of the state board of real property tax services relating to state equalizationrates may be reviewed bv commenciw an action in the mpellrmte division of the sumerne court in the manner provided by article seventy-eight of the civil. practice law and rules upon application of the county, city, town or vilIage for which the rate or rates was -4- [* 5] established. (emphasis supplied), Stated differently, [t]he plain tmguage of the statute mandates that a CPLR article 78 proceeding to review a determination of the Board relating to equalization rates be instituted i the Appellate Division, and if commenced in the wrong court, it is n properly dismissed (Matter of Feiner v New York State Off. of Real Prop. Servs., 25 AD3d 1005, 1006 [2006], lv denied 6 NY3d 712 [2006]). Thus, dismissal is warranted pursuant to CPLR 321l(a)(2) (see e.2. Matter of Town of Riverhead v New York State Bd. of Real Prop. Servs., 2 Misc3d 669,671 [2003j). Accordingly it is ADJUDGED that the petitidcornplaint is dismissed and the relief requested therein is in all respects denied. This DecisiodJudgrnent is being returned to the Attorneys for RespondentsiDefendants. All original supporting documentation is being filed with the County Clerk s Ofice. The signing of this DecisiodJudgment shall not constitute entry or filing under CPLR 2220. Counsel are not relieved from the applicable provisions of that rule relating to filing, entry and notice of entry. Dated: Troy, April n New York 16 ,2012 George B. Ceresia, Jr. Supreme Court Justice -5- [* 6] Papers Considered; 1. Order to Show Cause, signed by the Hon. Richard Platkin, Acting J.S.C. on December 12,2011; Summons, dated December 8,20 11; Notice of Petition, dated December 8, 201 I; Verified PetitiodCornplaint, dated December 8, 201 1, with annexed exhibits; Memorandum of Law in Support, dated December 8,201 1; 2. 3. 4. Notice of Motion to Dismiss, dated January 25, 20 12; Memorandum of Law in Support of Respondents Motion to Dismiss, dated January 25,2012; Affirmation of Mary E. Marzolla, Esq. in Opposition to DefendantsRespondents Motion to Dismiss, dated February 9, 20 12, with annexed exhibit; PetitionersPlaintiffs Memorandum of Law in Opposition to RespondentsDefendants Motion to Dismiss and in Further Support of PetitionersPlaintiffs Hybrid Action and Proceeding, dated February IO, 20 12; and Reply Memorandum of Law in Further Support of Respondents Motion to Dismiss, dated February 14,20 12. -6-

Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.