The URL can be used to link to this page

1991 . @ New York Telephone A NYNEX Company .. . Michael Fortier Managing Director Property Tax Compliance 1095 Avenue of the Americas New York, New York 10036 Phone (212) 395-6117 October 16, 1991 TOWN CLERK: Enclosed is a copy of a Petition of the Special Franchise Assessment for the 1991 Tax Roll, filed with the New York State Board of Equalization and Assessment, dated September 27, 1991. Very truly yours, /fttJ~;'~ Michael Fortier Enclosure RECEIVED OCT 2 1 1991 ELAINE SNOWDEN TOWN CLERK 70S8k SUPREME COURT OF~THE STATE OF NEW YORK COUNTY OF ALBANY . ---------------------------------------X , Petitioner, NOTICE OF PETITION ONDER ARTICLE 7 OF THE REAL PROPERTY TAX LAW OF NEW YORK STATE TO REVIEW SPECIAL FRANCHISE PROPERTY ASSESSMENTS FOR THE ASSESSING UNITS LISTED IN APPENDIX I DATED August 21, 1991 In the Matter of NEW YORK TELEPHONE COMPANY, -against- STATE BOARD OF EQUALIZATION AND ASSESSMENT, Index No. Respondent. (ASSESSMENTS OF 44 TOWNS) ---------------------------------------X (1991 ROLLS) SIR S : PLEASE TAKE NOTICE that on the petition of NEW YORK . "1'1/ TELEPHONE COMPANY, verlfled the~ day of September, 1991, an application will be made at a Term of this Court to be held at the Courthouse thereof in the City of Albany on the 15th day of November, 1991, at 9:30 o'clock in the forenoon of that day or as soon thereafter as counsel can be heard for the review under Article 7 of the Real Property Tax Law of the special franchise property assessments levied against the Petitioner as more particularly described in the annexed petition. PLEASE TAKE FURTHER NOTICE that pursuant to order of Hon. Edward S. Conway, Administrative Judge of the Third Judicial District, entered January 16, 1986, a copy of which is attached, this proceeding, on the return date thereof, shall be transferred by the Clerk of the Court to the pretrial tax certiorari calendar where it shall remain, subject to the terms of the order. PLEASE TAKEt~RTHER NOTICE that pursuant to the terms of the aforesaid order, Hon. Edward S. conway has retained jurisdiction over this proceeding until otherwise ordered by the Court. Dated: New York, New York September~1, 1991 Yours, etc., CULLEN AND DYKMAN Attorneys for Petitioner New York Telephone Company Office and P.O. Address 177 Montague Street Brooklyn, New York 11201 (718) 855-9000 TO: STATE BOARD OF EQUALIZATION AND ASSESSMENT Sheridan Hollow Plaza 16 Sheridan Avenue Albany, New York 12210-2714 "',' ....:: - - ..--.. _...._ 0 . . - . .;," . .- .0:... '. o. -~ -. . - . A . , t .. · . . . ' . . . . . ~t , ,p.~I.l ,.r. .r tht Suprt"'.' (o~rt of th. Sta\' of "wyctk, ht14 1ft aft' rOT' ,. CO\an\~ of ~a,.!'.)', .t ,... al'lr\ CC\lfI\t cowr\houa. lD lM . el\r.f bl"f. "..., 1'ort. .ft t..../IE -.t ~I i' · 1"" ,ow. I~~.~ I. CO~....~y J~5TJCt .!~1t 01 ~~~ YOJ~ S uPP-t".t CO'J1''T ?,tSl"'T1 CO~~'TY Of A1.'M~Y -..................................-...-- In ~he ~Itttr ef \he ~~pl1c.tlen' of , . );ttr: 'YO~" ,.U.t,,,ost Co.-:,~~l', · . ,.titler-,r, I I _ Ai,Snat - I . ~Kt S1~~E I~~.~ or 1~~~~11~110S ~~~ · ~sstSS~t~T, · . ,tlpOr'latnt. · --................-................-.-..- ITl'UL~'T10S ~~~ o~~t~ a'PL1C~'Lt TO ~~L ,~octt~I~CS ~t1~~~~!~t aTTtJ J~Si.i""Y " 1916 7.tition.r ~.. co~~.nc.5 an5 will conti".. to co,..ne. proe..ein;. .ialn.t ..'Po.5..t In ~lb..r Co."ty I.pr.~. co.rt "rl,ant \0 ~rtlelo 1 of the ..al ,rop.rty ~.x ~.~ Ch.ll.ngi"g t.. .".,,".nt. 0" v.do.. propertl.. o~ntl "r .otlllonu on5 10e.t05 \hro.;"oot t t.. ".rloo. t..I"g ~i.trlet. of thO Itota of ~.~ york, 1Iee.... 01 ,ho V0111"0 1111 '''00'' proeo051"g., ,0tltlOner .n5 ...ponhnt. "tly ,h.lr a\lorner" "."0 ... 'ho pllt oUp.l.te! that cath ,roeltSlng. oneo cOl'.....nee!.... d~0.r".5 frOlll 'UII to tor"' at Ip.t1al ~.r",. 'art 1. for the to."tr of alb."r. for all p~r,O,.a vlth all rlg"tt ....r".5 an5 t~. t~~. to a"tw.r. replr or oth.rwl" po,. b. \ &At."~.e wltho.t 4_te. ": ... .. .- ... . - .. .. -::.....:.:.. .. ~:. -:.... '. . . . en :.n~.r, 1, 1,.i ~ylel ,ro.ulglt.a ~y the efflee of Court . . ~~~lnl.tr.tfon .ent Jftto .rreet .h.rl~Y Sp.clal ~.r.' a. t~ll Illlt.a . . ~f1or to ''In''lr, 1. I'" a.re al>o11.he.: aft" all .otlonl or prc<.tUn;., ese.;t artlele " proc..alnil Ie Alba~', ar. ...Sgn.a 'y t~. Cllrk of .. :.. . . t~. Court to an InalYl4ual ''''ge ~ft4er the tn41,1'uIl aIISg~~,.ftt S)'. t.a= (lAS). ~h. .lllif.f'll"lt of t.he., proee.l51f'\ljl to vlrloUI t~S justlct. II 2"l C tin t."'. e be I tin t. ere I t 0 f j u l! 1 dll e eon ~ Y · It JI htr'~i atlpullt,l5 .1 fol1o~11 '-wtur. proee.~!n;1 e~.~.n:la by ,.titlon.r ai.if'llt. 'e';>~:'\!tn\. In .1baf'lY CCUf'lt,y Supr.~' Court. purluant to .rllele , of t.h. 'Ill 'rop.rt.y TIZ ~,w .:~Ill.nglf'lg tlZ 1111'1~.nt. on vlrlo~' Iptelal franchl.. propertl.. cwn.a by ',tltlcnlr If'll! lo:lt.~ thro~i~out the'varlo"l tlzlng dlllrlct. of the Stat. of ~e~ York, onee co7t..uncea, .hall flOt. b. ..llgft.1S by the Court. Clerk to .n lAS ~u.tlee 'ut Ihall ~ t.ran'f.rr.1S by t~. Cl.rk of the I . . Court to the ,retrl.1 t.a c.rtlorarl ell.naar, which t.ra~.r.r ahlll 'e .u~j.et to t,he following conaltlon.1 la' all wll~t. .~all .. r.servea to bot~ ,.tltloftef an~ ~I,pof'l!ent an! to anf ot~.r prop.r parlr w~leh ti~ely Interv.n.. for. all ,~rpol'" the pirtle. atlp~'at. that , ~~I. proe..al~1 ahall ftot b. at.~.a .bln4on.a un~tr JPIL 1'11, -Sf app'Jc:able, anI! the parll.. IUp\11at. ar.1! th. Court cr!er. that appraisal r.portl ne.~ not b. fllea a. ~equlr.a ul"l!er 22 "'YC"~ Sllt.2, or any aucceslOr 1~~Llon' of the Unlror~ Court ~ule., .~bjfel to .otton ~~ .Ith.r '.tltl~n.r or .t.ponatnt for lurL~.r ,1rlelion of t~e Co~rt ~pon t~lrty alO) ~a~' .iltttn ~ctlet \0 \~. oth.r. tb) .Oft. .a"ar' Ie Conwl)', or ~1. .~cce..:,r .. ~b.ll'lhlr&- tlv. ~~ai' of the ,hlra J~alel.\ ~l.\rlct. .~ll1 retain '~rJ.aletlon over the.' proce.aln,' until o\her"ll' OTatre! by the Co~rt. ™I':J}.... /1, Iff' :... .. . -_ .t . :-;-. ".. ~:.. ~-::--~ . . ~~ ~ .. . .. a" SO O~~t~E~1 t, ,f." (' ')'1 l CULL!~ ~~~ ~y~~~, ~ttorne~' for '.tltlo~tr, "e.. York ,..~ep~ol"l' COt'l';a~y 1)'1 fkt- ~ ./)y/'t-.- ~C't~T ~,~~S, ESQ., ~t\orne)' Ctntrll of the flate ef ~e- york, ~tlern'y fer 't.po~~tr.t, ~h. Stltl loard of ~u.l111'tlcl"l .~e ~..ell",enl .'1I~~LQ E ~'-..:~ u- SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK COUNTY OF ALBANY ---------------------------------------x PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 7 OF THE REAL PROPERTY In the Matter of TAX LAW OF NEW YORK STATE TO REVIEW SPECIAL NEW YORK TELEPHONE COMPANY, FRANCHISE PROPERTY ASSESSMENTS FOR THE Petitioner, ASSESSING UNITS LISTED IN -against- APPENDIX I DATED August 21, 1991 STATE BOARD OF EQUALIZATION AND ASSESSMENT, Index No. Respondent. (ASSESSMENTS OF 44 TOWNS) ---------------------------------------X (1991 ROLLS) TO THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK: The petition of NEW YORK TELEPHONE COMPANY respectfully states: 1. Petitioner is, and has been at all times hereinafter mentioned, a domestic business corporation duly incorporated under the laws of the State of New York having its principal office and place of business at 1095 Avenue of the Americas in the City, County and State of New York. 2. Petitioner is engaged in the business of supplying telecommunications services and is subject to the supervision and regulation of the Public Service Commission of the State of New York ("PSC") and the Federal Communications Commission ("FCC") in the respects provided by law. 3 . Petitioner is lawfully engaged in supplying telecommunications services to public and private consumers in a large area of New York State and in connection therewith owns facilities used in supplying telecommunications services which are located in, upon and under the streets, highways and public places in the assessing units listed in the first column "Assessing Unit" of Appendix "I" attached hereto and made a part hereof. Under S102 of the Real Property Tax Law ("RPTL"), the aforementioned facilities are defined as special franchise property. 4. At all times herein mentioned, the state Board of Equalization and Assessment (state Board) was empowered under provisions of the RPTL of the state of New York to fix and determine the full and equalized valuations of special franchise property for purposes of taxation. 5. The state Board annually determines the assessment of all special franchise property subject to assessment, valued as of the "rate valuation date". For the assessments in 1991, the particular calendar day and month of the year which is the rate valuation date is not set forth in the statute, nor is the date determinable with any degree of certainty under the provisions of the statute. Petitioner believes the state Board is using the incorrect rate valuation date. 6. On or about May 8, 1991, the State Board undertook and assumed to fix and determine the tentative equalized assessments for the taxable year 1991/92 of the special franchise property owned by the Petitioner and located in assessing units including those set forth in Appendix "I" hereto. The tentative equalized assessment for each assessing unit is set forth in the column "Tentative Assessment" of Appendix "I" as determined by the - 2 - state Board in its Notice of Tentative Assessments dated May 8, 1991. 7. On or about May 8, 1991, Petitioner was advised that the determinations had been made and that the state Board would meet at its offices in the City of Albany on June 21, 1991, to hear and determine the complaint concerning the tentative equalized assessments. 8. On June 6, 1991, Petitioner, aggrieved by these assessments, duly filed with the state Board a verified written complaint dated June 4, 1991, addressing these assessments to which complaint Petitioner refers as if herein set forth at length and made a part hereof. Your Petitioner, in and by the complaint, requested that the valuation of its special franchise property be reduced to the amounts, before equalization, set forth in the column "Claimed Full Value" of the Appendix "A" attached to the complaint; that the valuations be equalized at the rates set forth in the column "Equalization Rate" of the Appendix "A", except where the rates exceeded 100%; and that the equalized assessments be reduced to the amounts set forth in the column "Claimed Assessment" of the Appendix "A". A copy of the verified complaint was duly served upon each of the respective assessing units by mail and proof of the service was filed with the state Board. 9. On June 21, 1991, in the City of Albany, the state Board conducted hearings upon Petitioner's written complaint. 10. On August 13, 1991, the proposed final assessments for - 3 - the special franchise property owned by the Petitioner and located in assessing units including those set forth in Appendix "I" hereto were originally submitted by the state Board Staff to the state Board for approval. The State Board fixed and approved these final assessments at its August 13, 1991 meeting. However, prior to the issuance of a "Certificate of the Final Assessments" in the amounts approved on August 13, 1991, the state Board determined that the local assessing units had conducted revaluations which affected the state Board's assessments of Petitioner's special franchise properties. Therefore, the state Board rescinded the August 13th final assessments and re-established the final assessments in the amounts set forth in Appendix "I" hereto. 11. On August 21, 1991, the state Board gave notice in writing, by mail, to Petitioner that it had rescinded the final assessments previously determined for Petitioner's special franchise properties and that new final assessments were established to replace the rescinded assessments, and that new "special" equalization rates were established without affording Peti tioner the opportunity for administrative review of the procedure or value fixed by these replacement final assessments. A copy of the state Board certificate for the Replacement Final Assessments dated August 21, 1991 and the accompanying Notice of the state Board indicating that the prior final assessments have been rescinded and replaced are attached hereto as Appendix "I". Petitioner alleges that the rescission of a final - 4 - assessment does not restore the tentative assessment, and that any replacement assessment must be a tentative assessment, subject to the administrative review procedure of Article 6 of the Real Property Tax Law before a final assessment can be made. Petitioner alleges that the "replacement final assessment" has no valid basis and must be annulled. 12. The state Board gave notice in writing, that it had rescinded and replaced the previous final equalized valuations of Petitioner's specia 1 franchise properties with the replacement final assessments which are set forth in Appendix "I" attached hereto and made a part hereof, at the amounts set forth in the column "Final Assessment" of Appendix "I". The replacement final equalized valuations were based on a "special" equalization rate set forth in the column "Equalization Rate" of Appendix "I", as to which there had been no prior notice, no opportunity for hearing or examination and no record evidence. 13. The amount of taxes based upon the aforementioned assessments, if unpaid, would become liens upon the property of Petitioner. 14. Petitioner alleges that the final equalized valuations of its special franchise property, as fixed and determined at the amounts set forth in the column "Final Assessment" of the Appendix "I" hereto, are, and each of them is, unconstitutional, incorrect, illegal, void, erroneous, excessive and unequal for the reasons set forth below. - 5 - I. OVERVALUATION 15. The state Board determination of the full value of Petitioner's special franchise property in each of the respective assessing units exceeds the full value of the property as determined by proper use of income, reproduction and replacement valuation methodologies. 16. The full value of Petitioner's special franchise property in the respective assessing units should have been fixed by the state Board at amounts not exceeding the amounts set forth in the column "Claimed Full Value" of Appendix "I"; the extent of each respective overvaluation is set forth in the column "Overvaluation" of Appendix "I". 17. The equalized assessed values of Petitioner's special franchise property in the respective assessing units should have been fixed by the state Board at amounts not exceeding the amounts set forth in the column "Claimed Assessment" of Appendix "I"; the extent of each respective overassessment is set forth in the column "Overassessment" of Appendix "I". 18. The state Board's valuat ion of Petitioner's special franchise property as listed in Appendix "I" has been arbitrarily fixed and determined in an unauthorized, capricious, discriminatory and unwarranted manner, and at an excessive and confiscatory amount, and the state Board has incorrectly and inaccurately employed in connection therewith its method or rules of valuation. 19. The state Board has sought to value bookkeeping entries - 6 - rather than property, and in doing so it has valued costs which are unrelated to special franchise property or real property. 20. The state Board's application of the reproduction cost methodology in valuing Petitioner's special franchise property is incorrect in numerous respects, is misapplied in many instances and achieves a result far in excess of reproduction cost. The state Board ignores actual current reproduction or replacement costs and instead applies a cost trending index to reported original book costs (regulatory gross investment) which results in an overvaluation of Petitioner's special franchise property. The state Board also fails to apply adequate depreciation to Petitioner's property, including physical depreciation and economic, functional and technological obsolescence. Despite dramatic technological advances in the telecommunications industry over the past decade, the state Board makes no allowance for functional or technological obsolescence with respect to Petitioner's outdated special franchise property. The physical depreciation applied to Petitioner's property is inadequate because the state Board employs service lives and salvage percentages which are inaccurate and not in accord with those currently recognized by the PSC and FCC. Over two years ago, Petitioner submitted extensive documentary evidence in support of its request for an adjustment to physical depreciation to reflect currently recognized service lives and salvage values. Further, due to the time gap between the last rate valuation date and the annual - 7 - assessment date of special franchise property, and the state Board's approach in assessing property added by Petitioner subsequent to the last rate valuation date, recent property additions have been assessed without making any depreciation adjustment. In addition, the state Board fails to account for the considerable economic obsolescence resulting from the highly competitive communications business market in which Petitioner operates and the heavy regulation of the Petitioner, including the limitations placed upon Petitioner's earnings by the PSC and FCC. In response to a proposed rulemaking concerning economic obsolescence, Petitioner submitted materials on December 30, 1987, objecting to the state Board's Rules because they fail to allow a special franchise owner to demonstrate the existence and impact of economic obsolescence on its property in contravention of judicial precedent and established appraisal practice. Petitioner reasserts those arguments here. 21. The state Board's application of the reproduction cost methodology fails to account for numerous other factors which affect the value of Petitioner's specia 1 franchise property. No adjustment has been made for the piecemeal construction of the existing property or for the new construction of Petitioner's property necessitated by government mandated rehabilitation, relocations or replacements as well as by deregulation, the connection of new telecommunications providers, and the provision of fai lsafe redundancy in the network. - 8 - 22. The state Board's Rules fail to consider the use of a unit cost method to determine the reproduction or replacement cost of Petitioner's property. 23. In each of the municipalities, assessing units, and taxing districts listed on Appendix "I", the state Board has applied the "latest state equal i zation rate" in fixing the assessments pursuant to RPTL ~606. In the assessments where a rate in excess of 100% has been applied, the assessment is void on its face as an assessment at more than the full value of the property in violation of the prohibition in the New York state Constitution and in contradiction of established case law. II. INEQUALITY 24. The assessment of Petitioner's special franchise property for each of the respective assessing units is erroneous by reason of inequality, in that each of the assessments has been made at a higher proportionate valuation than the assessment of all other property on the same tax roll of the same assessing unit by the same off icers for the same year, (SBEA assessments by statute have the same effect as assessments made by local assessors). Specifically, while Petitioner's property is assessed at more than double the State equalization rate applied to its true full value, the average assessment of all other property in the same assessing unit does not exceed the amount determined by application of the state equalization rate to its full value. As examples of inequality, Petitioner specifies the assessment of all other real property and special - 9 - franchise property in each of the respective assessing units assessed upon the same assessment roll and each and every parcel thereof. 25. The State Board has assessed Petitioner's special franchise property at a fraction of its determination as to the full market value thereof, which fraction differs from those fractions applied (a) to other property generally in each of the respective assessing units and (b) to other property in the same class designation in each of the respective assessing units, all relating to property on the same tax roll and assessed by the same officers for the same year. The utilization of different fractions of full value is contrary to the requirement of uniformity set forth in RPTL ~305, and is prima facie evidence of inequality in the assessments. III. ILLEGALITY 26. The valuation of each of Petitioner's special franchise properties, including both the "tangible" and" intangible" parts thereof, cannot lawfully and properly be fixed at, and determined to be in excess of, sums representing the value of the "tangiblell part of each special franchise property, which already reflects any intangible value when such "tangible" part is properly evaluated as regulated telecommunications plant, operative and usable for the providing of telecommunications services and in the conduct of Petitioner's telecommunications business. 27. The state Board improperly and illegally included, in - 10 - the valuations of Petitioner's special franchise property, the costs for a wide variety of rehabilitative, emergency response, and restoration construction projects, which are not real estate improvements and do not constitute an element of value to be considered in fixing the assessments. 28. The state Board improperly and illegally included, in the valuations of Petitioner's special franchise property, improvements not yet completed or in use, consisting of construction costs, before equalization, of "tangible" property constituting construction work in progress. 29. The state Board improperly and illegally included, in the valuations of Petitioner's special franchise property, items of Petitioner's plant such as station connections which are not assessable when located in or on private property. The state Board's assessment of such plant is discriminatory and unsupported by statutory or decisional law. 30. The state Board's annual reassessment of special franchise property in assessing units in which all other real property on the assessments roll is not also similarly subjected to annual reassessment, is illegal as a discriminatory assessment practice in contravention of recent judicial decisions invalidating similar assessment practices as unconstitutional and illegal. 31. Petitioner is subject to the provisions of the Public service Law of the state of New York and to the jurisdiction of the PSC and FCC in the manner of the determination and - 11 - regulation of rates which Petitioner may charge for telecommunications service rendered in the respective assessing uni ts. Peti tioner' s taxable property consists of its real property, plant and equipment, and special franchises located within and outside the respective assessing units. Such property within the respective assessing units has no greater value for tax purposes than that which the PSC and FCC accept as the valuation of Petitioner's property in the fixation and prescription of the maximum rates which may be charged by Petitioner for telecommunications service furnished in the respective assessing units. 32. Petitioner is a profit-motivated business, and the valuation of its property is directly related to the earnings derived from the use of all of its property, including the special franchise property. In no event should the full value of Petitioner's property be fixed at an amount which fails to consider value calculated by capitalization of earnings. IV. OTHER 33. That insofar as Petitioner is required so to plead by RPTL ~706, the assessments are excessive, unequal and unlawful as defined in RPTL ~701. The respects in which the assessments are excessive are set forth in the allegations herein as to overvaluation. The respects in which the assessments are unequal are set forth in the allegations herein as to inequality and those alleging the assessments are at a higher proportionate valuation than the assessed valuation of other real property on - 12 - the same roll for the same year as determined by the same officer. The respects in which the assessments are unlawful are set forth in the allegations herein as to illegality. 34. Petitioner is aggrieved and will be injured by these unconstitutional, illegal, void, unjust, excessive and unequal assessments and Petitioner will be compelled to pay a far greater amount in taxes based upon the assessments than it would be compelled to pay if the assessments had been made constitutionally, justly and legally determined in accordance with the provisions of law and established methods of procedure and in accordance with the provisions of the Constitutions of the United states and of the state of New York, and far more than its fair and equal portion of aggregate taxes levied upon real property in the respective assessing units for the same period , resulting in conf iscation of Petitioner's property, denying Petitioner equal protection of the law, depriving Petitioner of its property without due process of the law and taking Petitioner's property for public use without rendering just compensation therefor, in violation of the Constitutions of the United states and of the state of New York. 35. Petitioner has duly complied with all the provisions of the Real Property Tax Law. 36. Not more than sixty days have elapsed since the service upon Petitioner of the "Certificate of Final Special Franchise Assessments" by the state Board of Equalization and Assessment. 37. No previous application has been made to any Court for - 13 - the relief sought herein. WHEREFORE, Petitioner, NEW YORK TELEPHONE COMPANY desiring a review upon the merits of the determinations with respect to final valuations and equalization rates, prays for an order: (1) that the determination of the final equalized assessment of Petitioner's special franchise property in the assessing units set forth in the Appendix "I" hereto be annulled and cancelled as unconstitutional, invalid, void and illegal; (2) that, in the event of a denial by this Court of the relief prayed for above, evidence be taken with respect to the value of the special franchise property of your Petitioner, and as to the overvaluation and inequality thereof, and as to each and all of the matters herein contained, including the proper equalization rate to be applied to such valuation, and such other matters as may be relevant; and that, on the law or on the merits, or both, the determinations, decisions and actions of the state Board of Equalization and Assessment be corrected and the assessments complained of reduced to the correct proper amount; and (3) that your Petitioner have such other and further relief as to which the Court may deem just and proper, together with - 14 - (2) that, in the event of a denial by this Court of the relief prayed for above, evidence be taken with respect to the value of the special franchise property of your Petitioner, and as to the overvaluation and inequality thereof, and as to each and all of the matters herein contained, including the proper equalization rate to be applied to such valuation, and such other matters as may be relevant; and that, on the law or on the merits, or both, the determinations, decisions and actions of the State Board of Equalization and Assessment be corrected and the assessments complained of reduced to the correct proper amount; and (3) that your Petitioner have such other and further relief as to which the Court may deem just and proper, together with the costs and disbursements of this proceeding and reasonable expenses, including fees of experts and attorneys. Dated: New York, New York September<<?, 1991 By: ORK ~~NE COMPANY RJCHARQ g. MAM ~C:1STAN~ mEASURER NEW CULLEN AND DYKMAN Attorneys for Petitioner 177 Montague Street Brooklyn, New York 11201 Tel. (718) 855-9000 -13- STATE OF NEW YORK COUNTY OF NEW YORK ss. : RICKARD. 0.. MARlS being duly sworn, deposes and says: That he/5iiAe is ASS1STAN..'[ mEASURER of NEW YORK TELEPHONE COMPANY, the Petitioner herein; that he/.ne has read the foregoing Petition including Appendix I attached thereto and knows the contents thereof; that the same is true of his/aer own knowledge, except as to the matters which are therein stated to be alleged on information and belief; and that as to those matters he/~ believes it to be true. ~2~~~ Sworn to before me this ~algrANt IRliAsUR&'R ~ 71Jf-day of September, 1991 L ~. ----:l:r-i~!r~ ?(P~ ~AYTH INEZ TREANOR Notary Public. Stale of New Yorll No. 03-4014992 QuaUfied in Bronx County Certified In New York County Commission Expires April 3D. 1993 . -14- APPENDIX I PAGE 17 NEW YORK TELEPHONE SPECIAL FRANCHISE PETITION ID . Name Tentative Final Code Rate SBEA Claimed Overvaluation Claimed Overassessment Assessment Assessment Full Value Full Value Assessment ===================================================================================================================================== COUNTY OF ALBANY 63190- 138 T OF WESTERLO $28,514 $26,070 S 0.0224 $1,163,839 $523,728 $640,112 $11,732 $14,339 COUNTY OF ALLEGANY 63190- 256 T OF GROVE $54,466 $54,466 S 1.1972 $45,494 $20,473 $25,022 $20,473 $33,993 63190- 272 T OF WEST ALMOND $70,146 $70,146 S 0.9439 $74,315 $33,442 $40,873 $31,566 $38,580 COUNTY OF CATTARAUGUS 63190- 424 T OF CARROLLTON $641,402 $641,402 S 1.1639 $551,080 $247,986 $303,094 $247,986 $393,416 63190- 428 T OF CONEWANGO $21,263 $21,263 S L 0486 $20,278 $9,125 $11,153 $9,125 $12,138 63190- 460 T OF MANSFIELD $298,838 $298,838 S L 3339 $224,033 $100,815 $123,218 $100,815 $198,023 63190- 468 T OF OTTO $205,345 $205,345 S 0.9703 $211,630 $95,234 $116,397 $92,405 $112,940 COUNTY OF CAYUGA 63190- 530 T OF GENOA $407,659 $407,659 S 1.0749 $379,253 $170,664 $208,589 $170,664 $236,995 63190- 550 T OF SEMPRONIUS $171,985 $178,905 S 0.8445 $211,847 $95,331 $116,516 $80,507 $98,398 COUNTY OF COWMBIA 63190- 1042 T OF HILLSDALE $76,557 $92,126 S L 0793 $85,357 $38,411 $46,946 $38,411 $53,715 COUNTY OF CORTLAND 63190- 1126 T OF FREETOWN $22,518 $23,051 S 0.9043 $25,490 $11,411 $14,020 $10,373 $12,678 63190- 1130 T OF HOMER $1,483,854 $1,547,752 S L 4269 $1,084,695 $488,113 $596,583 $488,113 $1,059,639 COUNTY OF DELAWARE 63190- 1248 T OF ROXBURY $633,517 $647,818 S 0.6795 $953,375 $429,019 $524,356 $291,518 $356,300 COUNTY OF DUTCHESS 63190- 1322 T OF BEEKMAN $943,113 $1,086,682 S L 1917 $911,875 $410,344 $501,532 $410,344 $676,338 63190- 1334 T OF LA GRANGE $3,388,144 $3,388,144 S 1.0221 $3,314,885 $1,491,698 $1,823,187 $1,491,698 $1,896,446 63190- 1356 T OF WAPPINGER $8,174,916 $6,726,235 S 0.7179 $9,369,320 $4,216,194 $5,153,126 $3,026,806 $3,699,429 PAGE 18 NEW YORK TELEPHONE SPECIAL FRANCHISE PETITION IDt Name Tentative Final Code Rate SBEA Claimed Overvaluation Claimed Overassessment Assessment Assessment Full Value Full Value Assessment ============================================================================================================z======================== COUNTY OF ESSEX 63190- 1526 T OF ESSEX $395,582 $395,582 S 1. 7447 $226,734 $102,030 $124,703 $102,030 $293,552 63190- 1542 T OF NORTH HUDSON $61,978 $56,163 S 0.1777 $316,055 $142,225 $173,830 $25,273 $30,890 COUNTY OF GENESEE 63190- 1822 T OF ALEXANDER $520,244 $520,244 S 1. 0739 $484,444 $218,000 $266,444 $218,000 $302,244 COUNTY OF HERKIMER 63190- 2128 T OF GERMAN FLATTS $2,707,815 $2,707,815 S 1.3954 $1,940,530 $873,238 $1,067,291 $873,238 $1,834,577 63190- 2152 T OF WARREN $441,188 $441,188 S 1.3051 $338,049 $152,122 $185,927 $152,122 $289,066 COUNTY OF MADISON 63190- 2532 T OF HAMILTON $1,018,269 $1,018,269 S 1. 3544 $751,823 $338,320 $413,503 $338,320 $679,949 COUNTY OF ONEIDA 63190- 3022 T OF AUGUSTA $56,001 $56,001 S 1. 4000 $40,001 $18,000 $22,000 $18,000 $38,001 COUNTY OF OSWEGO 63190- 3534 T OF MEXICO $1,118,973 $193,887 S 0.1432 $1,353,959 $609,282 $144,678 $87,249 $106,638 COUNTY OF SARATOGA 63190- 4146 T OF NORTHUMBERLAND $666,797 $869,661 S 1. 2799 $679,476 $305,764 $373,712 $305,764 $563,897 63190- 4150 T OF SARATOGA $1,303,263 $1,788,560 S 1.4905 $1,199,973 $539,988 $659,985 $539,988 $1,248,572 63190- 4152 T OF STILLWATER $1,454,787 $1,901,186 S 1.2251 $1,551,862 $698,338 $853,524 $698,338 $1,202,848 63190- 4156 T OF WILTON $2,769,733 $2,769,733 S 1.0415 $2,659,369 $1,196,716 $1,462,653 $1,196,716 $1,573,017 COUNTY OF STEUBEN 63190- 4628 T OF CAMERON $18,641 $24,220 S 0.1285 $188,482 $84,817 $103,665 $10,899 $13,321 63190- 4656 T OF JASPER $310 $302 S 0.0745 $4,054 $1,824 $2,230 $136 $166 63190- 4672 T OF URBANA $10,164 $10,736 S 0.1390 $77,237 $34,757 $42,481 $4,831 $5,905 .. PAGE 19 NEW YORK TELEPHONE SPECIAL FRANCHISE PETITION ID' Name Tentative Final Code Rate SBEA Claimed Overvaluation Claimed Overassessment Assessment Assessment Full Value Full Value Assessment =====================-=============~================================================================================================= COUNTY OF SULLIVAN 63190- 4820 T OF BETHEL $2,522,480 $2,522,480 S 1.3258 $1,902,610 $856,114 $1,046,435 $856,174 $1,666,306 63190- 4824 T OF COCHECTON $398,336 $398,336 S 1. 8241 $218,314 $98,268 $120,106 $98,268 $300,068 63190- 4832 T OF FREMONT $587,331 $587,331 S 1.5195 $386,529 $173,938 $212,591 $173,938 $413,393 63190- 4836 T OF LIBERTY $6,039,308 $6,039,308 S 1. 3963 $4,325,222 $1,946,350 $2,378,872 $1,946,350 $4,092,958 63190- 4844 T OF ROCKLAND $936,837 $936,837 S 1.5888 $589,651 $265,343 $324,308 $265,343 $671,494 63190- 4846 T OF THOMPSON $10,525,783 $10,525,783 S 1. 5244 $6,904,869 $3,107,191 $3,797,678 $3,107,191 $7,418,592 COUNTY OF ULSTER 63190- 5124 T OF GARDINER $1,179,704 $1,066,468 S 0.7790 $1,369,022 $616,060 $752,962 $479,911 $586,557 63190- 5126 T OF HARDEN BURGH $84,415 $84,415 S 1. 5481 $54,528 $24,538 $29,990 $24,538 $59,877 63190- 5136 T OF MARLBOROUGH $1,839,774 $1,670,778 S 0.7902 $2,114,374 $951,468 $1,162,905 $751,850 $918,928 63190- 5154 T OF ULSTER $256,201 $247,788 S 0.0324 $7,647,778 $3,441,500 $4,206,278 $111,505 $136,283 COUNTY OF WASHINGTON 63190- 5324 T OF DRESDEN $66,046 $64,087 S 0.0589 $1,088,065 $489,629 $598,435 $28,839 $35,248 63190- 5332 T OF GRANVILLE $1,992,106 $1,992,106 S 1. 2555 $1,586,703 $714,016 $872,687 $714,016 $1,278,090 63190- 5340 T OF HEBRON $510,243 $613,229 S 0.8841 $693,620 $312,129 $381,491 $275,953 $337,276