Saunders-Gomez v New York City Tax Commn.

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

Saunders-Gomez v New York City Tax Commn. 2012 NY Slip Op 31459(U) May 25, 2012 Sup Ct, NY County Docket Number: 200450/10 Judge: Martin Shulman 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. SCANNED ON 61112012 [* 1] SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK NEW YORK COUNTY PRESENT: PART Justice ,I INDEX NO. 2Qoqm Index Number : 200450/2010 TlBY J. SAUNDEHS-GOMEZ MOTION DATE vs THE TAX COMMISSION - 10 MOTION SEQ. NO. 0 0 Soquenco Number : 002 REAH GUM ~ N T ~ K E C O N S IDERATI ON The tollowlng papers, numbetred 1 to - Affidavits - Exhiblts Notice of Moon t/ i Answering AHldevlts , were read on this motion t o e r~Z@.,~u,de IN o W . 2 , IN O W . L - Exhibits INo(s). Replying Affldavlts Upon the foregoing papers, it is ordered that this m o t h I h-b' s &-Q ..................................................................... CASE DISPOSED ~ E CHECK AS APPROPRIATE: ........................... MOTION I : c'lGRANTED S CHECK IF APPROPRIATE: ................................................ SETTLE ORDER fi ,clwh< 1. CHECK ONE: 2. 3. u u DO NOT POST N I E D OTHER uG R A T E D IN PART CI 0SUBMIT ORDER nFIDUCIARY APPOINTMENT [I_] REFERENCE [* 2] SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK COUNTY OF NEW YORK X _______1______-____--------------------------------------------------- Tiby J. Saunders-Gomez, PetitionerlPlaintiff, Index No. 200450110 Block 2023, Lot 11 -againstDecision & Order New York City Tax Commission and New York City Department of Finance, SHULMAN, J., Petitioner, the owner of real property in t h e Borough of Manha&p&x T % b bKk dI F w . r - above, moves to reargue this court s decision and order spread upon the record on November 15, 201 I, which inter alia denied petitioner s motion for discovery in this Real Property Tax Law ( RPTL ) Article 7 proceeding and granted respondents crossmotion to compel petitioner to submit a Statement of Income and Expenses (Real Property Audit Report Form) (hereinafter certification ) for tax year 201012011 as required by 22 NYCRR §202,6O[c]. Respondents oppose the motion At the outset, CPLR 2221 (d)(3) provides that motions to reargue shall be made within thirty days after service of a copy of the order determining t h e prior motion and written notice of its entry. Here, respondents served notice of entry by first class mail on December 13, 201 I.Petitioner served the instant motion by first class mail on Petitioner brought this action by summons and complaint attempting to challenge the assessments for t h e subject property for tax years 2006/2007 through 201012011. This court has treated the summons and complaint as an RPTL Article 7 petition. Tax year 2010/201 I is the only tax year petitioner timely challenged and thus is the only tax year at issue in this proceeding. [* 3] February 4 , 2012 and as s u c h petitioner s motion to reargue must be denied as Even if the motion had been timely, it would have been denied as lacking in merit. A motion for reargument, addressed to the discretion of the court, is designed to afford a party an opportunity to establish that t h e court overlooked or misapprehended the relevant facts, or misapplied any controlling principle of law. Foley v. Roche, 68 AD2d 558 (1st Dept 1979). Motions for leave to reargue are not designed to provide an unsuccessful party with successive opportunities to reargue issues previously decided, or to present arguments different from those originally presented. Pro Brokerage, Inc. v. Home Ins. Co., 99 AD2d 971 ( I st Dept 1984); William P. Pahl Equip. Corp. v. Kassis, I 8 2 AD2d 22 (1st Dept 1992). Petitioner essentially contends that she is entitled to discovery on a quid pro quo basis. According to petitioner, this court erred in granting respondents cross-motion for discovery while denying her motion for discovery. This argument lacks merit inasmuch as statutory authority exists for respondents cross-motion, viz., 22 NYCRR §202.60[c] expressly requires petitioner to serve and file the requested certification. The same cannot be said for petitioner s motion to compel discovery wherein petitioner primarily sought discovery pertaining to tax assessments for neighboring properties. Disclosure in special proceedings such as this RPTL Article 7 proceeding is governed by CPLR 9408 and the court has greater control over discovery in special Prior to serving the instant motion petitioner served a prior notice of motion for reargument on December 15, 201 I , This motion lacked a return date and thus was procedurally defective. -2- [* 4] proceedings than in other actions. Mafter of General Elec. Co. v Macejka, 117 AD2d 896, 897 (36 Dept 1986). The information sought must be material and necessary. The words, material and necessary , are to be interpreted liberally to require disclosure, upon request, of any facts bearing on the controversy which will assist preparation for trial by sharpening the issues and reducing delay and prolixity. The test is one of usefulness a n d reason (citation omitted). Real property tax assessments may be challenged on the grounds that the assessment is excessive, unequal or unlawful, or the real property has been misclassified. RPTL §706(1). Here, the discovery petitioner seeks would only be relevant to her claim that the assessment is unequal, /.e.,made at a higher proportionate value than that of similar properties. However, petitioner fails to establish any basis for her conclusory assertion that other properties are being assessed differently. As set forth in the Noveniber 15, 201 Itranscript, it is first necessary to determine if t h e assessment is excessive, which requires analysis of the subject property s income and expenses. Discovery regarding similar properties is not material and necessary at this juncture. As a final point, this court denied petitioner s motion for discovery without prejudice. Thus, it has not been finally determined that petitioner i not entitled to the s discovery she seeks. However, on this motion petitioner does not present anything new that would justify granting her discovery at this time. f o r the foregoing reasons, petitioner fails to demonstrate that this court overlooked or misapprehended the relevant facts, or misapplied any controlling principle of law. Accordingly, it is hereby -3 - [* 5] ORDERED that petitioner's motion to reargue is denied. The foregoing is this court's decision and order. Courtesy copies of this decision and order have been sent to petitioner and respondents' counsel. Dated: New York, New York May 25, 2012 / Hon. Martin Sh -4-

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.