Supreme Assoc., LLC v Suozzi

[*1] Supreme Assoc., LLC v Suozzi 2007 NY Slip Op 51714(U) [16 Misc 3d 1136(A)] Decided on July 3, 2007 Supreme Court, Nassau County McCarty, J. Published by New York State Law Reporting Bureau pursuant to Judiciary Law § 431. This opinion is uncorrected and will not be published in the printed Official Reports.

Decided on July 3, 2007
Supreme Court, Nassau County

Supreme Associates, LLC, Manhasset Isle Yacht Club Corp.; Manhasset Bay Yacht Sales Corp.; Annette Oestreich; Segall Associates LLC; BFS Realty LLC; 4B'S Harbor Park Drive LLC; Ressa Family LLC; Ressa, Cuneo, Lokay, a Partnership; Bayles Properties, Inc.; Secatoag Properties LLC; SNR Realty Corp.; C.P.C. Pools Inc.; 1 Valley Road, LLC and Almas Development, LLC, Plaintiff(s)

against

Thomas R. Suozzi, et al., Defendant(s)



11755/06

Edward W. McCarty, J.

Motion by defendants Suozzi, Levinson, Brown, Norman, Freeman, Dejesu and the County of Nassau (hereinafter, "the Nassau County defendants") for an order pursuant to CPLR 3211(a)(7) dismissing the complaint, is denied.

The plaintiffs in this action are the owners of various commercial properties in the Port Washington Union Free School District (hereinafter, "the School District"), who seek to challenge a portion of Article 18 of the Real Property Tax Law ("RPTL"). Plaintiffs' complaint alleges three causes of action: (1) that Article 18 violates the due process requirements of the United States and New York State Constitutions; (2) that Article 18 violates the equal protection provisions of the United States and New York State Constitutions; and (3) that Article 18 has created irrational and discriminatory taxation, forcing plaintiffs to pay a disproportionate share of the School District tax levy. [*2]

The State of New York and the Governor have served an answer to the complaint. Insofar as this Court is aware, defendant School District has yet to answer or appear in this action. The Nassau County defendants have moved pursuant to CPLR 3211(a)(7) to dismiss the complaint on the ground that it fails to state any claim upon which relief may be granted.

On a motion to dismiss for failure to state a cause of action, the Court must accord the plaintiffs the benefit of every possible inference and decide whether from the four corners of the complaint there is any cause of action cognizable at law. (See, Operative Cake Corp. v Nassour, 21 AD3d 1020.)

Contrary to the arguments raised in the Nassau County defendants' motion to dismiss, plaintiffs neither object to the fact that Article 18 of the RPTL defines Nassau County as a "special assessing unit", nor do they object to the classifications of real property established by RPTL 1802, or to the differing tax rates for said classes. The essence of plaintiffs' complaint is that the adjusted base proportions utilized to calculate their School District taxes are arbitrary and bear no relationship to the actual ratio of assessed value, or to any other objective criteria.

The School District taxes on commercial properties are determined by comparing the assessed value of the commercial properties to the assessed values of all properties, and then that ratio is applied to the total tax levy for the School District. However, RPTL 1803-a limits the adjustments that may be made to that proportion from year to year. Plaintiffs allege that while the 2002-2003 reassessment of real property in Nassau County substantially increased the assessed value of residential properties, thus altering the proportion of the assessed value of residential properties to the assessed value of all properties, because of the limitations contained in RPTL 1803-a, the proportion figures used to calculate plaintiffs' taxes are not at all in line with the actual proportions of assessed values.

Plaintiffs further allege that while New York City is a "special assessing unit" like Nassau County, it does not utilize such inaccurate proportions because reassessment is performed annually in the City.

Taking plaintiffs' allegations at face value on this motion to dismiss, plaintiffs have demonstrated that because of the restrictions contained in RPTL Article 18, their taxes have been calculated using an arbitrary figure, with no apparent rational basis. At this stage of the litigation, dismissal is unwarranted. (See, Matter of Schwaner v Collins, 17 AD3d 1068.)

Date_____________________________________________

J.S.C.