FILED: ONEIDA COUNTY CLERK 12/22/ :47 PM INDEX NO. EFCA NYSCEF DOC. NO. 18 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 12/22/2017

Transcription

1

2 F ILED : ONE IDA NYSCEF DOC. NO. 18 COUNTY CLERK 07 /21/ : 2 4 Pli RECEIVED NYSCEF: 12/22/2017 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 2 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 07/21/2016 STATE OF NEW YORK SUPREME COURT COUNTY OF ONEIDA.... In the Matter of the Application of INDEX NO. JASON D. LEBRECHT, IAS NO. -against- Petitioner THE BOARD OF ASSESSORS OF THE TOWN OF FLORENCE, NOTICE OF PETITION Respondents For Review of Certain Tax Assessments on the 2016 Town of Florence Assessment Roll Under Article 7 of the Real Property Tax Law Assigned Judge: SIRS: PLEASE TAKE NOTICE, that upon the annexed verified Petition, an application will be made at a Special Term to be held at the Oneida County Courthouse, 301 North James Street, Rome, New York, on September 16, 2016 at 9:30 a.m., or as soon thereafter as counsel can be heard, for a review under Article 7 of the Real Property Tax Law of the State of New York of certain tax assessments ofreal property of the Petitioners appearing on the Florence Town Assessment Roll for the year 2016 as situate in the Town of Florence, County of Oneida State of New York and more particularly described in the annexed petition to the end that all proceedings, decisions and actions in the matter of said assessments be corrected, modified or vacated as a matter of law and/or on the merits by such Court, and seeking other and further relief as may seem just and proper, together with the costs and disbursements of the proceeding. PLEASE TAKE FURTHERNOTICE that your appearance is notrequired on thereturn date. Dated: July 1(_, 2016 u.8 '! Lake Placid, New York GREGORY M. DENNIN, ESQ. TO: BOARD OF ASSESSORS/TOWN OF FLORENCE 4240 West Lee Road Dennin & Dennin Attorneys for Petitioner Main Street Taberg, NY SUPERINTENDENT/CAMDEN CENTRAL SCHOOL 51 Third Street Camden, NY ONEIDA COUNTY COMMISSIONER OF FINANCE County Office Building 800 Park Avenue - 2"d Floor Utica, NY Lake Placid, NY ( Signed pursuant to Section 130-Di-a of the Rules of the Chief Administrator (22NYCRR. Fiied In Oneida County Clerks Office 7/21/20161 Gf:24:06 PM Index 0 EFCA

3 .. Alf#f# 1#9.- NYSCEF DOC. NO. 18 RECEIVED 12/22/2017 F gq@. 11(b, 11 1%ÏfdifITMRP 1 Ygfggg': (p77//j211//j¼p1 6 STATE OF NEW YORK SUPREME COURT COUNTY OF ONEIDA - - In the Matter of the Application of INDEX NO. JASON D. LEBRECHT, IAS NO. -against- Petitioner THE BOARD OF ASSESSORS OF THE TOWN OF FLORENCE, Respondents For Review of Certain Tax Assessments on the 2016 Town of Florence Assessment Roll Under Article 7 of the Real Property Tax Law PETITION Assigned Judge: TO THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK: The Petitioner above named, respectively alleges as follows: 1. At all times herein mentioned, Petitioner was and still is a taxpayer of the Town of Florence, whose Board of Assessors is the Respondents herein. Petitioner is an aggrieved party with respect to the assessment within the meaning of Section 704 of the Real Property Tax Law, and Petitioner will be injured under the grounds set forth in Section 706 of the Real Property Tax Law. 2. Respondents have heretofore prepared, completed and perfected, purportedly according to law, the 2016 assessment roll for the Town of Florence, for the tax year January 1, 2017 through December 31, The assessment roll included an assessment for Petitioner's real property. Petitioner's property is described and assessed as set forth in Schedule A attached hereto and is hereinafter referred to as the "Property". 1 Qf

4 3. Pursuant to Section 524 of the Real Property Tax Law, Petitioner duly made and filed in a timely manner a Complaint(Form [EA-524SAU] with Respondents to have the assessed valuation of said Property corrected and revised, specifying therein the respect in which the assessment complained of was incorrect and requesting appropriate adjustments in the assessments. The Complaint is hereby referred to and made a part of this Petition as though fully set forth herein. 4. Thereafter Respondents completed the assessmentrolls and dulymade and subscribed the oath thereto and filed the same with the Florence Town Clerk. Thereafter Respondents, through the Florence Town Clerk, caused notice to be published in the official newspaper of the Town of Florence that the assessment roll had been finally completed and stated that they had been so filed. AS AND FOR A FIRST CAUSE OF ACTION 5. Petitioner repeats and reallages the allegations contained in Paragraphs 1 through 4 as if fully set forth herein. 6. Upon information and belief, the valuation and assessment of the Property is erroneous and in violation of Article XVI, Section 2 of the New York Constitution by reason that the assessment results in a valuation that exceeds full value in the amount set forth as excessive assessment on Schedule A. The extent of the excessive valuation is set forth on Schedule A under "Extent of Excessive Valuation". Petitioner is injured thereby in that the assessment of the Property exceeds the full market value of the Property as of the tax status date of Respondents. AS AND FOR A SECOND CAUSE OF ACTION 7. Petitioner repeats and realleges the allegations contained in Paragraphs 1 through 6 as if fully set forth herein. 8. The assessment on thepropertyis unequal inasmuch as the assessment has been made 2 2 of 7

5 at a higher proportionate value than the assessments of other real property on the assessment roll by Respondents. The specified instances of such inequality are the assessments of other real properties on the tax roll of the assessing jurisdiction. Respondents claim an equalization rate of 16.10%. Upon information and belief, the true equalization rate is 11.27%. The assessment of the Property should be reduced to the amount which appears in the column headed "Petitioner's Proposed Assessment" in order that it may be made proportionate to assessments elsewhere throughout the Town of Florence. Petitioner has suffered and will continue to suffer irreparable harm by the Respondents's action in that Petitioner will be required to bear a proportionately higher tax burden than all other property owners in the Town of Florence. 9. Petitioner is aggrieved and injured by the excessive and unequal assessments and will be injured thereby and will be required to pay taxes which he would not be required to pay if such assessment had been made correctly and properly; and such unjust, unequal and excessive assessment will subject your Petitioner to the payment of more taxes than they are legally required to pay. 10. Upon information and belief, the assessment is grossly discriminatory entitling Petitioner to an additional allowance as set forth in Real Property Tax Law Section 722. AS AND FOR.A THIRD CAUSE OF ACTION 11. Petitioner repeats and realleges the allegations contained in Paragraphs 1 through 10 as if fully set forth herein. 12. On or about July 20, 2005, Petitioner purchased the Property described above for Sixty Nine Thousand Nine Hundred and 00/100 Dollars ($69, At the time of Petitioner's purchase of the Property, the total assessment placed 3 of V

6 . against the Property was Four Thousand and 00/100 Dollars ($4, which assessment equated to full market value of Thirteen Thousand Three Hundred Thirty Three and 00/100 Dollars ($13, based on the then applicable 30% state equalization rate. 14. Subsequent to the transfer of title from the seller to Petitioner and for the 2006 tax year, Respondents placed an assessment on the Property of Twenty Thousand and 00/100 Dollars ($20, which equates to full market value of Sixty Six Thousand Six Hundred Sixty Seven and 00/100 Dollars ($66, based on the then applicable 30% state equalization rate. 15. Upon information and belief, that at the time the Property was reassessed by the Respondents, no improvements had been made by them and no construction of any permanent structure had occurred. 16. Respondents, in the preparation of the 2006 assessment roll and all subsequent assessment rolls to the 2016 current roll, while confirming of the assessments placed upon the Property, did not engage in any market re-evaluation as to lots which are similar to the Property. 17. Upon information and belief, Respondents have and are engaged in a systematic and consistent practice of re-assessing only those parcels ofreal property in the Town of Florence which have been transferred to a new owner. 18. Respondents have not and do not re-evaluate other parcels of real estate in the.respondents, Town of Florence, which maybe similar to the re-assessed real estate, but which have not been the subject of a conveyance to a new owner. 19. Upon information and belief, in all such instances, the assessment placed against the Property which was the subject of re-assessment upon conveyance to a new owner, has been increased solely based upon an arbitrary percentage of the sales price of the property so conveyed. 4 4ofl

7 20. By targeting for upward re-assessment only those parcels ofreal property which have been conveyed to a new owner, and excluding from such re-evaluation similar parcels which have not been the subject of a transfer, the Respondents have violated their duty to assess all real property in the assessing unit according to.its condition and ownership based upon a uniform percentage of value. 21. By excluding comparable or similar properties from re-evaluation and limiting a program of re-evaluation exclusively to property which have been the subject of a transfer or a conveyance, Respondents have engaged in an unlawful and discriminatory practice of selective assessments which unduly discriminates against purchasers of real property and thereby imposes upon such purchasers, including the Petitioner herein, a higher tax burden than all other owners of real property in the Respondents, Town of Florence. 22. The Respondents' aforementioned act constitutes invidious and irrational discrimination in contravention of the equal protection requirements of Article I, Section 11 of the New York State Constitution and the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments of the United States Constitution, and is arbitrary, unreasonable and capricious. 23. There is no compelling or rational bases upon which Respondents can justify limiting their program of re-assessment solely to those properties which have been the subject of a resale to the exclusion of all other properties similar to the property resold. 24. Petitioner has suffered and will continue to suffer irreparable harm by the Respondents' action in that Petitioner will be required to bear a proportionately higher tax burden than all other property owners in the Town of Florence. WHEREFORE, Petitioner pray that the Supreme Court review and correct, on the merits, the 5 Iof 7

8 aforementioned final determination of the Respondents on the grounds set forth in this Petition, and that the said Court take evidence to enable your Petitioner to show the unjust, unequal, excessive, illegal and erroneous assessment of the said real property, to the end that the assessments from 2006 to 2016 anay.may be declared invalid or, in the alternative, reduced and corrected, based upon the full, true, and market value of the Property to a valuation proportionate to the assessments of other real property assessed on the same rolls for the same year, so that equity of assessments will result, and further grant Petitioner an award of counsel fees and such other and further relief as the Court may deem proper, together with the costs and disbursements ofthis proceeding, including specifically any legal and appraisal fees incurred by Petitioner as a result of Respondent's' assessment and additional costs as set forth in Real Property Tax Law Section 722. Dated: July 1], 2016 Lake Placid, New York GR G RY M. DENNIN Dennin & Dennin Attorneys for Petitioner 2745 Main Street Lake Placid, NY ( Signed pursuant to Section a of the Rules of the Chief Administrator (22NYCRR, 6 Sod 7

9 VERIFICATION STATE OFNEW YORK COUNTY OF ESSEX SS: I, GREGORY M. DENNIN, being duly sworn, state I am the attorney for the Petitioner in this action. I hereby make application to this Court to review and revise assessment(s as indicated herein. The foregoing petition is true to my own knowledge except as to matters therein stated on information and belief and as to those matters, I believe it to be true. The grounds of my belief as to all matters not stated upon my knowledge are communicationswiththe Petitioner. Imake this verification pursuant to authorization received from the Petitioner pursuant to Section 706(2 of the real Property Tax Law. This authorization is attached hereto and made a part of this petition. GREG RY M. DENNIN Swg to before me this 'Al.~t day of July, Notary Public d~ DEBRA L CHABOT Ci</P~O"' Notary Public, Stats of New York No. 01CH Qualified in Essex County Commission Expires October9, of 7

10 WN805$' "0 j~ %$, MC.. Rh-. 85CRRA55 SCHEDULE A JASON LEBRECHT 2016 Proceeding Respondents' Final Tax Map No. Assessment Full Valuation* Petitioner's Fair Market Proposed Value Assessment** Assessment $12,500 $77, $21,100 $2,378 *Petitioner derives the full value figure by dividing the final assessment by the 2016 state equalization rate for the Town of Florence of 16.10% **Petitioner derives the proposed assessment figure by multiplying the true 2016 equalization rate in the Town of Florence of 11.27% by the Fair Market Value of the Property.

11 ITWEE W.. NEiB iáp MGWE@ AUTHORIZATION The undersigned, individual or entity, being an aggrieved person within the meaning and intent of the Real Property Tax Law, or such officer or partner thereof, hereby authorizes Dennin & Dennin, its attorneys, agents and employees to act as agent for the purpose of verifying, serving and filing Complaints as Dennin & Dennin deems appropriate, and, where necessary or appropriate; such Petitions for review of real property tax assessments pursuant to Article 5 and 7 of the Real Property Tax Law as they deem appropriate ta+pk '4JQJ &IXI & pertaining to l '4/ property described ~4 A as4 follows: J- Tax Map No.: ~.~ 9z.~ - Il... 4>l n L recht Dated: Lt. Lh LS L~ tw