The URL can be used to link to this page

Owen, Jacquelyn """" .( 4 .r ~'t"ll!ll'Q; >M!:!'"..... .f SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK COUNTY OF DUTCHESS ------------------------------- --------------------------------------- In the Matter of the Application for a Review Under Article 7 of the Real Property Tax Law of the Tax Assessments by VICTOR N. OWEN and JACQUELYN OWEN, Petitioners, NOTICE OF PETITION Index No. 2007/ lfgs7 -against - THE ASSESSOR OF THE TOWN OF WAPPINGER, DUTCHESS COUNTY, NEW YORK AND THE BOARD OF ASSESSMENT REVIEW FOR THE TOWN OF WAPPINGER, RE(~E.IVt-LJ JUL 3 0 2007 TOWN CLERK Respondents. Greetings: PLEASE TAKE NOTICE that upon the annexed petition, verified the ~ ~ day of July, 2007, an application will be made at Special Term of the Supreme Court of the State of New York in an~:for the County of Dutchess at 10 Market Street, Poughkeepsie, d Dutchess County, New York, on the 17th day of September, 2007, at 9:30 o'clock in the forenoon of that day, 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 a certain tax assessment of real property of the petitioners situated in the Town of Wappinger, County of Dutchess, State of New York, particularly described in the annexed petition, appearing upon the assessment roll for the tax year 2007/2008, and for such other and further relief as may be just and proper. PLEASE T AKE FURTHER NOTICE that, pursuant to the Uniform Rules of Practice, your appearance or submission in opposition to this application is not required on the return date. The matter shall be adjourned generally, and all issues raised herein shall be deemed r-..., C~ C',> -.l c_ ~~') c: :,': ,---'- j r ,'-\1- ') :::U'-,:- . ':' ~'-:: (1 ~) .. ( I) ':_: en C') ":::C() : 1"-: ~ r-:=l .~ '1 c-= n~ .-< i',,) _J -I) (.) 0) en ., .. ,( automatically denied by you in twenty (20) days after completion of service ofthe Notice and Petition, pending judicial intervention pursuant to Section 712 of the Real Property Tax Law. Dated: July 2..6, 2007 TO: Town Clerk Town of Wappinger 20 Middlebush Road Wappinger Falls, New York 12590 Assessor Town of Wappinger 20 Middlebush Road Wappinger Falls, New York 12590 Board of Assessment Review Town of Wappinger 20 Middlebush Road Wappinger Falls, New York 12590 Superintendant of Schools of the Wappingers Central School District 29 Marshall Road Wappinger Falls, New York 12590 Dutchess County Commissioner of Finance 22 Market Street Poughkeepsie, New York 12601 W:\Owen\Tax Cert\2007\Ntc of Petition 7-9-07.wpd cal ROBERT R. BUTTS, ESQ. Attorney for Petitioners 75 Washington St., P.O. Box G Poughkeepsie, New York 12602 (845) 471-1600 ~ " . f SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK COUNTY OF DUTCHESS ============================== In the Matter of the Application for a Review Under Article 7 of the Real Property Tax Law of the Tax Assessments by VICTOR N. OWEN and JACQUELINE OWEN, Petitioners, PETITION Index No. 2007/ '-1-9.57 -against- THE ASSESSOR OF THE TOWN OF WAPPINGER, DUTCHESS COUNTY, NEW YORK AND THE BOARD OF ASSESSMENT REVIEW FOR THE TOWN OF WAPPINGER, "-> c:~ t._~::...) ~) --.J (_) ..--::.: ,c'"" ,-__, ~-J C~1 ~~ ,') i"'.) :;; 5: ,- !~i ~,..,J ; ;-1 (r:' (.,') . .- - '(J) :} 1~.5~ g TO THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK, COUNTY OF DUTCI-l.BSS~2\;: .. c) ,._. (0 (l" '-i The petitioners, VICTOR N. OWEN and JACQUELINE OWEN ("Petitioners"), Wtheir -( Respondents. attorney, Robert R. Butts, Esq., as and for a verified petition in the above matter, hereby allege as follows: 1. Petitioners reside at 158 Old Post Road, Wappinger Falls, NY 12590 and are the owners of real property situated in the Town of Wappinger, Dutchess County, New York, described on the assessment roll of the Town as follows: VICTOR N. OWEN and JACQUELINE OWEN TAX MAP NO. 135689-6157-04-649335-00 9.03 ACRES 2. Respondents are the Assessor of the Town of Wappinger (herein "Town"), a municipal corporation, and the Board of Assessment Review of the Town of Wappinger, which are charged with the duty of reviewing the assessments of real property within the Town for the W:IOwenlTax Cert12007\Petition 7-9-07,wpd cal .f purposes of taxation. 3. Upon information and belief, the assessor for the Town prepared and completed a tentative assessment roll for all real property in the Town for the tax year of2007-2008. The assessor then filed the assessment roll with the Town Clerk so that it might be seen and examined. 4. The land and premises owned by Petitioners were tentatively assessed on the assessment roll as follows: Land Value Full Value $ 160,460 $1,543,750 5. On or about May 15,2007, Petitioner protested the tentative assessment of the property by timely filing with respondents a written complaint for review and correction of the assessment, which included statements under oath specifying the respects in which the assessment was incorrect and a request for a reduction of the assessment. A copy of the complaint is attached as Exhibit "A". The complaint was received by respondents without objection and within the time fixed by law for the making and hearing of complaints. 6. On May 23,2007, such complaint was presented at a hearing before the Board of Assessment Review. Petitioners claimed in their complaint that the estimate of the fair market value of the property should be $412,000.00. Based upon the applicable equalization rate, Petitioners' claimed assessment as so presented should be deemed to be $132,664.00. 7. Respondents thereafter made their final determination on Petitioner's complaint, and on or about July 13,2007 the assessment roll for the Town for the year 2007-2008 was finally completed and filed by respondents. W:\Owen\Tax Cert\2007\Petition 7-9-D7.wpd cal 2 .. ~'# 8. Respondents gave notice of the completion and filing of the assessment roll on or about the same date. 9. The assessment on Petitioner's real property as it appears on the assessment roll as finally completed and filed by Respondents according to law in the amounts set forth in the following schedule: Tentative Assessment Claimed Assessment Final Assessment Inequality or Overvaluation $1,543,750 $412,000 $1,543,750 $1,131,750 10. Thirty (30) days have not elapsed since the latter of the final completion and filing of the assessment roll and the giving of notice thereof as required by law, or the final day set by law for the filing of the assessment roll. 11. Upon information and belief, the full market value of Petitioner's real property is not more than $412,000. 12. The assessment of Petitioners' property on the assessment roll as finally completed and filed is incorrect and erroneous upon the following grounds: a. Overvaluation to the extent set forth in the aforementioned schedule in paragraph "9. " b. Inequality to the extent set forth in the aforementioned schedule in paragraph "9" in that the assessment is unequal having been made at a higher proportionate valuation than the assessments of other real property on the same roll and/or other real property in the same class on the same roll by the same officers and Respondents. The specified instances of said inequality are the assessments of all real property and/or other real property in the same class other than the W:\Owen\Tax Cert12007\Petition 7-9-07.wpd caJ 3 .. .f property of the Petitioners, in the same assessing jurisdiction and in each and every parcel thereof. In order that the assessment of Petitioners' real property be made proportionate to assessments of all other real property throughout the assessing jurisdiction and/or other real property in the same class throughout the assessing jurisdiction, it is necessary that it be reduced to the amount set forth in the aforementioned schedule. c. Misclassification to the extent the assessment resulted in an incorrect allocation of parcel's assessed valuation between homestead real property and the remainder of the parcel. d. Illegality to the extent set forth in the aforementioned schedule in that subject property is being assessed in an erroneous, arbitrary and capricious manner. e. Unconstitutional to the extent the methodology used by the Respondents is in violation of the Equal Protection Clause of the New York State Constitution and the United States Constitution. 13. If the assessment at issue is a transitional assessment, such assessment is excessive, erroneous and illegal in that it exceeds the permissible transitional increase set forth in the Real Property Tax Law. 14. Petitioners are aggrieved and injured by said unjust, unequal, excessive, illegal, incorrect and erroneous assessments in that, by reason thereof, Petitioners will be compelled to pay a greater amount and proportion of taxes based upon the assessment roll than Petitioners would be required to pay if said assessment had been just, fair, equal and correct. 15. No provision is made by law for an appeal or other relief from the final determination of Respondents, except by a review by petition to the Supreme Court and no previous application has been made to any Court or Judge for the relief herein requested. WIOwenlTax Cert12007lPetitioll 7-9-07.wpd cal 4 of , . WHEREFORE, Petitioners pray that said assessment roll be corrected and the assessment against Petitioners' aforesaid real property be reduced to a proper amount and properly equalized with the assessments of other real property on the same roll; that the Court take evidence or cause the same to be taken to enable Petitioners to show the illegality, inequality, over-valuation, and error of said assessment against Petitioners' real property; that Petitioners have such other and further relief as may be just and proper, including the costs and disbursements of this proceeding, reasonable related expenses; that illegal, unequal or excessive taxes be refunded, with interest, and such additional allowances as the Court shall allow. Dated: July l~ , 2007 ROBERT R. BUTTS, Attorney for Petitioner 75 Washington St., P.O. Box G Poughkeepsie, New York 12602 (845) 471-1600 W:\Owen\Tax Cert\2007\Petition 7-9-07wpd cal 5 , I Verification: STATE OF NEW YORK ) ) ss: COUNTY OF DUTCHESS ) VICTOR N. OWEN, being duly sworn, deposes and says: I am the Petitioner in the above entitled action; I have read the foregoing Petition and know the contents thereof and the same are true to my knowledge except those matters therein which are stated to be alleged upon information and belief, and as to those matters I believe them to be true. Sworn to before me this &~-~ y of July, 2007. ?Jlt -e tU:~f2: VICTOR N. OWEN Notary Public DEBORAH E. MARONE Notary Public, State of New York No 4937671 qua.lified In Dutchess County -"'0/0 Commission Expires JulV 25, ex W:IOwenlTax CertllOO7\Petition 7-9-07.wpd cal 6 " ~ NYS BOARD OF REAL PROPERTY SERVICES RP-S24 (10/02) COMPLAINT ON REAL PROPERTY ASSESSMENT FOR 2007 BEFORE THE BOARD OF ASSESSMENT REVIEW FOR TOWN OF WAPPINGER (city, town village or county) : j' ~ j i PART ONE: GENERAL INFORMATION (General information and instructions for completing thisform are contained inform RP-524-lns) 1. Name and telephone no. of owner(s) Victor N. o.ven 2. Mailing Address of owner(s) 158 Old Post Road .1~ (xJ1 JP 1 i np (Wpn WappingQrs Falls, NY 12590 Day no. ( 845 297-9087 Evening no. ( 3. Name, address and telephone no. of representative of owner, if representative is filing application. (if applicable, complete Part Four on page 4.) R()hprl- R Rnt-t-c:; 75 Washington St., PO Box G, Poughkeepsie, NY 12602 (845) 471-1600 4. Property location 158 Old Post Road Street Address Village (if any) Wappinger Dutchess City/Town Wappinger CSD School District County 5. Property identification (see tax bill or assessment roll) Tax map number or sectionlblockllot 61~7-04-64g11~-nO Type 0 f property: Residence X Farm Vacant land Commercial Industrial Other Description: 9 acres, rrostly wooded, with tw:) houses, one owner-occupied, the other vacant. Assessed value appearing on the assessment roll: 6. Land $ 160,460 Total$ 1,543,750 7. Property owner's estimate of current full market value of property (see Part Two on page 2) $ 412,000 RP-S24 (10/02) 2 PART TWO: INFORMATION NECESSARY TO DETERMINE VALUE OF PROPERTY (If additional explanation or documentation is necessary, please attach) Information to support the value of property claimed in Part One, item 7 (complete one or more): I. _ Purchase price of property: ... .............. ........... ............. ........ ..... .... .............. ............ ........ $ a. Date of purchase: b. Terms: Cash Contract Other (explain) c. Relationship between seller and purchaser (parent-child, in-laws, siblings, etc.): d. Personal property, if any, included in purchase price (furniture, livestock, etc.; attach list and sales tax receipt): 2. _ Property has been recently offered for sale (attach copy of listing agreement, if any): When and for how long: How offered: Asking price: $ !'Ioperly II~I:" beeli rcct:lltly ~Ipplalsecl (attach copy) When ')/U:. By Wl10ln Hubb,.:..ll Hecd t] .Y.::lvl.L" Purpose of appraisal 2:~ Cer!:.iorari Appraised value 'I) 412 r 000 4. -K. Description of any buildings or improvements located on the property, including year of construction and present condition: 2 houses, shed ~ fair to p:::>or cond it ion 5. _ Buildings have been recently remodeled, constructed or additional improvements made: Cost $ Date Started: Date Compl!:~ted: Complainant should submit construction cost details where available. 6. _ Property is income producing (e.g., leased or rented), commercial or industrial property and the complainant is prepared to present detailed information about the property including rental income, operating expenses, sales volume and income statements. 7. ---.1L Additional supporting documentation (check if attached). Copy of appraisal. See also attached statement. RP-524 (10/02) 3 PART THREE: GROUNDS FOR COMPLAINT A. UNEQUAL ASSESSMENT (Complete items 1-4) 1. The assessment is unequal for the following reason: (check a or b) a._ The assessed value is at a higher percentage of value than the assessed value of other real property on the assessment roll. b._ The assessed value of real property improved by a one, two or three family residence is at a higher percentage of full (market) value than the assessed value of other residential property on the assessment roll or at a higher percentage of full (market) value than the assessed value of all real property on the assessment roll. 2. The complainant believes this property should be assessed at % of full value based on one or more of the following (check one or more): a.----'. The latest State equalization rate for the city, town or village in which the property is located is %. b._ The latest residential assessment ratio established for the city, town or village in which the residential property is located. Enter latest residential assessment ratio only if property is improved by a one, two or three family residence %. c._ Statement of the assessor or other local official that property has been assessed at %. d._ Other (explain on attached sheet). 3. Value of property from Part one #7................... .............. .... ...................................................... $ 4. Complainant believes the assessment should be reduced to ........................................................ $ B. EXCESSIVE ASSESSMENT (Check one or more) The assessment is excessive for the following reason(s): 1. ~ The assessed value exceeds the full value of the property. a, Assessed value of property ..................... ................... ...... ............................ ......................... $ 1, 543, 750 b Complainant believes that assessment should be reduced to full value of (Pali one #7). $ 412,000 ,\II;I('h 1151 0/'pa1'c<:'15 upon whICh l'oll1plainzlnlrelles ttll "b,e('IICII1. If<lpplicable 1'l1e [a;>(abk <Issessecl vdlUt, " l',U-'SSIVL: beGllIs<:' ul [11t.' denial ul.;t11 01' por[lu!l '.d ,I l)d!li;t1 <,'\<:1111)111 II! a Specify exemption (e,g., sel1lor citIZens, veterans, school tax 1'elief[ST AR]) b Amount of exemption claimed c Amount granted, if any:__....__ ____.___...____...._....__...... cl If application for exemption was filed, attach copy of application to this complaint 3. _ Improper calculation of transition assessment. (Applicable only in approved assessing unit which has adopted transition assessments.) a. Transition assessment ................... ................... ................ ............ ....... ....... ........... ...... .......... $ b. Transition assessment claimed ................ ......... ...... ...................... ............. ............................ $ $ $ c. UNLAWFUL ASSESSMENT (Check one or more) The assessment is unlawful for the following reason(s): I. _ Property is wholly exempt. (Specify exemption (e.g., nonprofit organization)) 2. _ Property is entirely outside the boundaries of the city, town, village, school distri:t or special district in which it is designated as being located. 3. _ Property has been assessed and entered on the assessment roll by a person or body without the authority to make the entry. 4. _ Property cannot be identified from description or tax map number on the assessment roll. 5. _ Property is special franchise property, the assessment of which exceeds the final assessment thereof as determined by the State Board of Real Property Services. (Attach copy of State Board certificate.) D. MISCLASSIFICATION (Check one) The property is misclassified for the following reason (relevant only in approved assessing unit which establish homestead and non-homestead tax rates): ~ Class designation on the assessment roll: ................... Non-Homestead I, X- Complainant believes class designation should be ,... Homestead 2, K- The assessed value is improperly allocated between homestead and non-homestead real property. Allocation of assessed value on assessment roll Claimed allocation Homestead...........$ O. 412,000 Non-Homestead...$ 1,543,750 0 .. RP-524 (10/02) 4 PART FOUR: DESIGNATION OF REPRESENTATIVE TO MAKE COMPLAINT Victor N. ONen I, , as complainant (or officer thereof) hereby designate Robert R. Butts to act as my representative in any and all proceedings before the board of assessment review of the city/townlviIlage/county of Wi'lppi ngpr for purposes of reviewing the assessment of my real property as it appears on the _(year) tentative assessment roll of such assessing unit. ~W OJ l)~.J CL Date Signature of owner (or officer thereof) . PART FIVE: CERTIFICATION I certify that all statements made on this application are true and correct to be best of my knowledge and belief, and I understand that the making of any willful fase statement of material fact herein will subject me to the provisions of the Penal Law relevant to the making and filing of false instruments. "1; ~t-t""\..... 1\1 tr.7on qi,{ c 1 D te t);L J CL- Signature of owner (or representati ve) vir.t-or N lwPn PART SIX: STIPULATION The complainant (or complainant's representative) and assessor (or assessor designated by a majority of the board of assessors) whose signatures appear below stipulate that the following assessed value is to be applied to the above described property on the _(year) assessment roll: Land $_ Total $_ (Check box if stipulation approves exemption indicated in Part Three, section B.2. or C.l.) Complainant or representative Assessor Date SPACE BELOW FOR USE OF BOARD OF ASSESSMENT REVIEW Disposition D Unequal assessment DExcessive assessment D Unlawful assessment DMisclassification D Ratification of stipulated assessmentDNo change in assessment Reason: D All concur D All concur except Vote on Complaint D against D abstain D absent Name D against D abstain D absent Name Decision by Board of Assessment Review $ $ $ $ Tentative assessment Total assessment $ Transition assessment (if any).. $ Exempt amount........................ $ Taxable assessment.................. $ Claimed assessment $ $ $ $ Class designation and allocation of assessed value (if any): Homestead ............................. $ $ Non-homestead ....................... $ $ Date notification mailed to complainant $ $ STATEMENT IN SUPPORT OF COMPLAINT ON REAL PROPERTY ASSESSMENT FOR 2007 RE: VICTOR N. OWEN & JACQUELYN OWEN 158 OLD POST ROAD, WAPPINGERS FALLS, NY 12590 TAX GRID NO. 6157-04-649335-0000 I The property should be assessed for its existing residential use, and not as commercial property. The subject property is located on the east side of Old Route 9 and is zoned HD-Highway Design. Although zoned HD, the property classification is 280 Residential: Multi PurposelMulti Structure. The property is presently improved by two residences, in fair to poor condition, one of which is currently occupied by the owners, Mr. and Mrs. Owen, as their personal residence. Mr. and Mrs. Owen had been previously advised by the Town Assessor that the property is valued for commercial use. However, under New York law the Assessor must value the property in accordance with its current use, as residential property, even though it may have a different highest and best use. The rules with respect to this principle are set forth in an Opinion of Counsel of the State Board of Real Property Tax Services, a copy of which is annexed hereto and made a part hereof. (lOOps Cns!. SBRPS 45, 1996.) Mr. and Mrs. Owen submit herewith a recent appraisal of their property for residential purposes, in which the property valued at $412,000.00. The assessed value should be reduced from the present figure of$1,543,750.00 to $412,000.00 in recognition of the property's actual present use. II The property should be given a homestead classification. Mr. and Mrs. Owen were informed previously by the Assessor's Office that Homestead classification of the property was being denied because the property included two single family residential structures. However, under New Yark law where a parcel consists of two or more structures, each of which is a one, two- or three-family dwelling, the entire parcel may be included within the Homestead class. This principle is stated in an Opinion of Counsel of the State Board of Real Property Services, a copy of which is annexed hereto and made a part of this application. (9 Ops Cns!. SBRPS 45, Revised 1991.) The property should receive a homestead classification. W:\Owen\Tax Cert\2007\Stmt Complaint 5-15-07.wpd cal . Volume 9 - Opinions ofOounse}'SBRPS No. 45 O~~ce of Real Property Services l'U}n.yd' RJght$ '" bfonnatioc Valuing '" .AssessIng Real Ptopetty I Tax PolJcy .futms. Pu.bllQUWS P..quali2&tloa "" '" ~ '" P~ Tax lI:ry.Disttibutiw Re.l.ated Si1r;$ Opinions of Counsel Volume 9: Opinions of Counsel SBRPS No. 45 Approved assessing units (homestead class) (parcels with two or more dwelling structures); Assessments, generally (parcel) (definition of)- Real Property Tax Law, 99102(11), 502, 1901: Wlere a parcel consists of two or more structures, each of which is a one-, two- or three-family dwelling, the entire parcel may be included within the homestead class, even though the structures on the parcel may contain a total of four or more dwelling units. We have received an inquiry regarding the classification of real property as homestead or non-homestead for purposes of the dual tax rate system authorized by Article 19 of the Real Property Tax Law. The inquiry describes two different parcels and poses the question of whether either is entitled to homestead classification. The first parcel includes four structures, three of which are single family homes and one of which is a two-family home. The second parcel includes two structures, one of which is a three-family home and the other of which is a two-family home. None of the homes is owner-occupied Section 1901(13)(a) of the Real Property Tax Law (RPTL) defines the "homestead class," in pertinent part, as "all one, two or three family dwelling residential real property, including such dwellings used in part for nonresidential purposes but which are used primarily for residential purposes, and farm dwellings" and "all other residential real property consisting of more than three dwelling units held in condominium form of ownership...." The "non-homestead class" is defined in subdivision (22) of section 1901 as "all real property not included in the homestead class." In our opinion, the phrase "one, two, or three family dwelling residential real property" as used in section 1901 (13)(a) is intended to refer, not to parcels, but to structures (see, 7 Op.Counsel SBEA No. 85). The definitions of the homestead and non-homestead classes make no reference to the term "parcel," and the criteria applicable to the establishment of parcels are not directly relevant to the classification process. The legal definition of a "parcel" is, in pertinent part, "a separately assessed lot, parcel, piece or portion of real property..." (RPTL, S102(11); 9 NYCRR 190-1.I(g)). Designating real property as a parcel serves to identify that property for purposes of assessment and taxation. The decision as to what property constitutes a parcel is generally a determination to be made by the assessor on a case-by-case basis (see, 7 Op.Counsel SBEA No. 14). The law does not specify what a parcel may or may not include, except in a few instances where separate assessment of property is specifically mandated (see, e.g., Real Property Law, S339-y [condominium units]; RPTL, 9s102(12)(g) [mobile homes and the land thereunder when one or the other is exempt from taxation] and 564 [a privately- owned improvement located on State owned land)). Furthermore, except in Nassau County, a parcel may not straddle municipal boundaries, including those of villages and school districts (9 NYCRR 189.1(i),190-1.I(d)). The assessor must also be mindful when determining the classification of parcels that each parcel must be described on the assessment roll in a manner sufficient to identify the real property (RPTL, 9502(2)). An adequate description is essential to the enforcement of a delinquent tax lien against the property (RPTL, 99557, 1002; 5 Op.Counsel SBEA No. 31). Zoning restrictions are not Page 1 of 3 Volume 9 '- OpinIons of Cou.nsel S~RPS No. 45 binding upon the assessor when designating parcels, but it is appropriate for the assessor to take such restrictions into consideration. If a parcel that did not conform to zoning restrictions had to be acquired by the tax district for delinquent taxes, it could be difficult for the tax district to sell the parcel to a private purchaser. Thus, deciding what real property to include in a parcel is largely within the assessor's discretion. Deciding whether real property should be classified in the homestead or non-homestead class for purposes of Article 19, however, is not controlled by how the assessor has chosen to exercise this discretion. Article 19 authorizes preferential tax treatment for one-, two- or three-family homes in approved assessing units. Nothing in the text of Article 19 requires that each such home be assessed separately, and, in our judgment, it would be contrary to the policy of Article 19 to infer such a requirement. We do not believe there is a reason why a one, two or three-family home that would be included in the homestead class, if separately assessed, should be excluded from the homestead class simply because it is part of a parcel consisting of more than one residential structure. "It is a fundamental rule of statutory construction that of two constructions which might be placed upon an ambiguous statute, [a construction] which would cause objectionable consequences is to be avoided" (McKinney's Statutes, 9141). Accordingly, section 1901 of the RPTL must be construed to req uire that classification be based upon the attributes of the structure rather than of the parcel. The State Board's Rules relating to Approved Assessing Units (9 NYCRR Subpart 190-4) expressly recognizes that the classification of real property is not dependent upon where the parcel boundaries have been drawn. Section 190-4.1 (g) defines the "homestead class" as "all separately assessed real property parcels or parts thereof used as one, two or three family residential dwellings including so much of the abutting land as is reasonably necessary for residential purposes, not exceeding 10 acres" (emphasis added). Thus, a parcel may include both homestead and non- homestead property, in which case each part is to be separately classified, and the assessed value of the parcel is to be allocated between the homestead and non-homestead parts (9 NYCRR ~~ 190- 4.2(a), (c); see also RPTL, S~522(6)(c), 701(5)(c); cr, 7 Op.Counsel SBEA No. 65). Conversely, if all of the parts of the parcel are individually eligible for homestead classification, the entire parcel should be so classified. Thus, where a parcel consists of two or more structures, each of which is a one, two or three family dwelling, the entire parcel may be included within the homestead class, even though all of the structures on the parcel, taken together, may contain a total of four or more dwelling units.: A concluding note is that the statute does not require that any of the dwelling units be owner- occupied. Therefore, residential real property which is otherwise eligible to be included in the homestead class should be so classified even if some or all of the premises are occupied by tenants. March 10, 1989 [Revised April 10, 1991] "As would be the case with a parcel containing only one such structure, only so much of the land as is reasonably necessary for residential purposes, not exceeding 10 acres, may be included in the homestead class (9 NYCRR 190-4.1(g)). Last Modified on: 11/27/200210:46:29 Page 2 of3 Volume 9 - Opinions ofC:ounsel'SBRPS No. 45 Page 3 of3 Privacy and Security Notice I Disclaimer I Copyright I Contact Us Questions/Comments: nysorps@orps.state.ny.us Cop)'r1!l11t 2(106 (518) 474-2982 All RislrtlJ RCIl~,td VolumeolO - Opinions of,Counse,l SBRPS No. 45 Offi~e ,of Real Property Services T~yet RJgbw at Iufonnatiou ViUulngat ~ Real Property I Tu fuUc;:y Fomu. ~tIotas Bq1W!udoa & &;.~ &; Pt~ TuUvy DJ.ttibutiou Related Sila; Opinions of Counsel Volume 10: Opinions of Counsel SBRPS No. 45 Assessments, generally (value)(current use v. highest and best use) - Real Property Tax Law, ~9 302, 305: In establishing assessments, the assessor must value property in accordance with its current use, rather than its highest and best use. The one exception is far vacant land that is used for no purpose; its value may be based upon highest and best use. Guidelines have been requested concerning the valuation of real property for assessment purposes, specifically whether current use or highest and best use is the correct method. As explained herein, we believe that the assessor must value property in accordance with its current use, except for certain vacant land. The statutory standard of assessment is that all real property must be assessed at a uniform percentage of value (Real Property Tax Law, 9305(2)). Section 302 of the RPTL requires that real property be valued for assessment purposes as of its condition and ownership as of the applicable taxable status date Valuation is determined as of the applicable valuation date (RPTL, 8301) We have often discussed the meaning of "value" for purposes of real property tax administration, most recently in 10 Op. Counsel SBRPS No. 34, where we stated The basic rule of law is that "[t]he 'market value of real property is the amount which one desiring but not compelled to purchase will pay under ordinary conditions to a seller who desires but is not compelled to sell' [citations omitted]" (W.I. Grant Co. v. Srogi, 52 N.Y.2d 496, 510,420 N.E.2d 953, 438 N.Y.S.2d 761,767 (1981); see also, Parklin Operating Corp. v. Miller, 287 N.Y. 126, 38 N.E.2d 465 (1941)). Wthin the appraisal profession, a determination of "market value" also implies a valuation of the subject property at its "highest and best use." As is explained at length hereafter, however, that concept is generally inapposite to valuation for real property tax purposes. The concept of "highest and best use" has been defined by the appraisal profession as: That reasonable or probable use that will support the highest present value... as of the effective date of the appraisal [arl..that use, from among reasonably probable and legal alternative uses, found to be physically possible, appropriately supported, financially feasible, and which results in highest land value.... It is to be recognized that in cases where a site has existing improvements on it, the highest and best use may very well be determined to be different from existing use (Boyce, Real Estate Appraisal Terminology; American Institute of Real Estate Appraisers, p.1 07). Another appraisal authority states, "Land is valued as if vacant and available for its highest and best use. Highest and best use for land is the use that, at the time of the appraisal, is the most profitable likely use" (American Institute of Real Estate Appraisers, The Appraisal of Real Estate, p.43). The standard practice, then, is for appraisal reports to contain an analysis of the parcel's highest and best use, and for the prediction of value to be based on that use. Page 1 of3 . -Volume 10 - Opinions of.Counsel SBRPS No. 45 However, the New York State courts have not adopted highest and best use as the general standard for tax assessment purposes. In Kalski v. Fitzgerald, 25 AD.2d 573, 266 N.Y.S.2d 620 (3d Dept., 1966), the court held that current use, not highest and best use, is the proper standard, stating: Of course it is immaterial that a building is not an adequate improvement in the sense that it does not utilize the land to develop the highest commercial income and the owner is to be assessed on the basis of the building as it existed on the taxable status date (266 N.Y.S.2d at 622). In Addis Co. v. Srogi, 79 AD.2d 856, 434 N.Y.S.2d 489 (4th Dept., 1980 mot. Iv. to aPD. den., 53 N.Y.2d 603, 421 N.E.2d 853, 439 N.Y.S.2d 1026 (1980)), the parcel subject to review was improved by two connected buildings used as a retail apparel store. The appraisal experts for both sides agreed that the highest and best use of the property was for conversion to a multi-family dwelling. Nonetheless, the trial court and Appellate Division held that the standard for assessment purposes was "its condition on the taxable status date, without regard to future potentialities or possibilities and may not be assessed on the basis of some use contemplated in the future" (434 NYS.2d at 490). The Fourth Department reiterated its conclusion in Farone & Son. Inc. v. Srogi, 96 AD.2d 711,465 N.Y.S.2d 373 (4th Dept., 1983). This "black-letter law" has been followed throughout the State (see, !UL, BCA-\M1ite Plains Lanes. Inc. v. Glaser, 91 AD.2d 633,457 N.Y.S.2d 299 (2d Dept., 1982); Adirondack Mountain Reserve v. Bd. of Assessors, 99 AD.2d 600,471 NYS.2d 703 (3d Dept., 1984), affd, 64 N.Y.2d 727,475 N.E.2d 115,485 N.Y.S.2d 744 (1984); General Motors Corp. v. Assessor. Town of Massena, 146 A D.2d 851, 536 N.Y.S.2d 256 (3d Dept., 1989)). Citing Adirondack, supra, the Third Department said, "The valuation of property is determined by its state as of the taxable date, and may not be assessed on the basis of some future contemplated use" (General Electric Co. v. MClcej~~, 117 AO.2d 896, 498 NYS.2d 905,906 (3d Dept, 1986)). More recently, the Appellate Division, First Department, considered a case where the property owner had purchased six parcels improved by residential walk-up apartments, some with street level retail space. The City of New York argued that they should be valued as an "assemblage" which had a higher value based on potential conversion. The Appellate Division emphatically rejected this assertion (Estate of Goldman v. Commissioner of Finance, 203 AD.2d 20, 609 N.Y.S.2d 241 (1st Dept., 1994), mot. Iv. aRD. den., 83 N.Y.2d 759, 639 N.E.2d 754, 616 N.Y.S.2d 14 (1994)). In another case involving the issue of highest and best use, Justice Rossetti, in Supreme Court, Nassau County, noted that when a parcel is improved and has a current valuable use which is inconsistent with potential future use, the consideration of potential uses is inconsistent with the statutory directive that property be valued based on its existing condition (New Country Club of Garden City v. Bd. of Assessors, Supreme Court, Nassau County, Index No. 12696/88, June 4, 1991). The parcel under consideration in New Country Club was a golf course, which had been valued for assessment purposes in accordance with its value for residential development. The Court found that this was inappropriate and that, since the property was improved by the golf course, its use as such had value, albeit not as great a value as might be realized for other uses. The salient point made in the decision is that the assessor is directed by section 302 of the RPTL to assess each parcel annually and that should a change in use be effected, the assessor will have the opportunity to make an adjustment in the assessed value, if appropriate, at the time of that change in use (see. Matter of Allied Stores v. Finance Administrator, 76 AD.2d 835, 428 N.Y.S.2d 316 (2d Dept., 1980)). The court contrasted the case of a parcel subject to condemnation pursuant to the Eminent Domain Procedure Law where the owner will be compensated for his loss in value only once. In such cases, the court said it is appropriate to value the property taking into consideration potential future uses (see, Pollack v. Bd of Assessors, 62 AD.2d 1019,403 N.Y.S.2d 762 (2d Dept., 1978)). This is in contrast to an assessment, which, as discussed previously, may be adjusted annually) Yet another example of the reluctance of the courts to ascribe higher values to property based on development potential is found in the case of City of Rochester v. Assessor of Town of Conesus, 136 AD.2d 881,524 N.Y.S.2d 940 (4th Dept., 1988). There the City challenged Page 2 of 3 Volume 10 - Opinions of Counsel SBRPS No. 45 ..4 ., assessments of its property on the shores of one of its reservoirs. The respondent assessing unit argued that the highest and best use of the property should be based on its development potential as lakefront property. The Appellate Division rejected this contention, finding that there was no indication that the City intended to sell the property and that its highest and best use was as a watershed. The issue of agricultural land is somewhat problematic. In one older case, it was found proper to value farm land by considering its potential for residential development (People ex reI. Town of Hempstead v. Tax Commissioners, 163 App.Div. 803, 149 NYS. 239 (3d Dept., 1914}).~ In more recent cases, the aforecited Justice Rossetti has held that agricultural or horticultural use is to be distinguished from the case of idle, vacant land and that land put to such uses must be valued accordingly, irrespective of whether farming is the highest and best use of such property (Czuchman v. Bd. of Assessors, Supreme Court, Nassau County, Rossetti, J., 12/14/92. n.o.r.; Hicks Nurseries v. Bd of Assessors, Supreme Court. Nassau County, Rossetti, J., 4/8/93, n.o.r.). The one apparent exception to the rule is in the case of vacant and unimproved land. There, if it is found that the land has no current existing use beyond that of its potential sale for a further use, there is nothing improper in establishing its assessed value by considering its market value as enhanced by potential uses ~ingarten v. Town of Ossining, 85 A.D.2d 697, 445 N.Y.S.2d 480 (2d Dept., 1981)). Based upon the foregoing, we conclude that for purposes of real property tax assessments, property must be valued based upon its current use. not its highest and best use, except in the case of vacant land which is idle and put to no use whatsoever. In such latter case, the property may be valued on the basis of its highest and best use. March 6, 1996 1 The Court of Appeals confirmed this distinction between valuation in condemnation and valuation in tax certiorari cases in Allied Corporation v. Town of Camillus, 80 N.Y2d 351, 604 N.E.2d 1348, 590 N.YS.2d 417 (1992), [~9Ig~_Qen" 81 N.Y.2d 784, 610 N.E.2d 393,594 N.Y.S.2d 720 (1993) The Court noted that "[t]he relevant consideration in assessment cases is the property's value on the taxable status date - not its future use or value or the intentions of the owner" (80 N.Y.2d at 360. 590 NYS.2d at 422). 2 This decision and assessment practices pursuant to it may explain the conundrum of the legislative findings in the original enactment of the Agricultural Districts Law (Agriculture and Markets Law, Art. 25-AA). Section 300 thereof. as first enacted (L.1971, c.479). referred to "urban pressure" on agricultural land and "stimulate[d] land speculation" as justification for partial tax exemptions for viable agricultural land. Yet, if assessors were applying the current use standard in assessing viable agricultural lands, the assessments should D.9J have reflected the values of farmland otherwise inflated by pressures to develop the same for non-farm purposes and/or the influence of speculative investments in neighboring properties (but see, Karlin Farms v. Board of Assessors, 197 A.D.2d 32, 609 N.Y.S.2d 933 (2d Dept.. 1994)). Last Modified on: 05/13/200508:59:15 Privacy and Security Notice I Disclaimer I Copyright I Contact Us Questions/Comments: nvsorps@orps.state.ny.us (518) 474-2982 All Righls RcSCfVCd Cop}'f'ir,ht 2006 Page 3 of3 I I I I U I I I I I I I I I - - ~ - II R. PETER HUBBELL. ..JR.. MAl . HUBBELL REALTY SERVICES, INC. Real Estate Appraisal and Counseling 320 MAIN STREET. POUGHKEEPSIE, NY 12601 (845) 454-6525 . FAX (845) 454-6359 EMAIL: InfoOhubbellrealtyservlces.com APPRAISAL RESTRICTED REPORT - LIMITED APPRAISAL SUBJECT PROPERTY Owen Property 158-164 Old Post Road Town ofWappingers Dutchess County, New York CERTIFIED TO Robert R. Butts Attorney & Counselor at Law 75 Washington Street PO Box G Poul!hkeensie. NY 12602 .. GRANT ....CKERLY WENDY NESEL I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I Owen v T/O Wappinger September 23, 2005 page l This is a Restricted Use Appraisal Report which is intended to comply with the minimum reporting requirements set forth under Standards Rule 2-2(c) of the Uniform Standards of Professional Appraisal Practice for a Restricted Use Appraisal Report. As such, it does not present discussions of the data, reasoning, and analysis that were used in the appraisal process to develop the appraiser's opinion of value. Supporting documentation concerning the data, reasoning and analysis is retained in the appraiser's file. The depth of discussion contained in this report is specific to the needs of the client andfor the intended use stated below. CLIENTIINTENDED USER: Robert R. Butts Attorney & Counselor at Law 75 Washington Street PO Box G Poughkeepsie, NY 12602 INTENDED USE: For the sole use of the client to establish the value of properties listed below for appeal of the 2004 and 2005 real estate tax assessments. This report is not intended for any other use. The appraiser is not responsible for unauthorized use of this report. IDENTIFICA TION OF REAL ESTATE: Subject Property: Owner: Tax Id. Number: Current use: Improvements: 9.03 acre improved parcel; Town of Wappinger, NY Victor N. & Jacqueline Owen 6157-04-649335 Multiple residences Main house, 1,018 sq.ft. cape; Old style rental house, 2-story with 2,384 sq.ft, and a shed, all in fair to poor condition. INTEREST VALUED: Fee Simple Interest PURPOSE OF THE ASSIGNMENT: To development an opinion as to a range in market value (as defined by agencies that regulate financial institutions in the United States and published by the Appraisal Institute in The Dictionary of Real Estate Appraisal, 4th edition). The resulting value conclusions will be used by Robert R. Butts, attorney for the property owner, in challenging the 2004 and 2005 assessments of the subject properties. EFFECTIVE DATE OF VALUE: January 01,2004 for the 2004 roll. July 01, 2004 for the 2005 roll. DA TE OF REPORT: September 16,2005 Owen v TIO Wappinger September 23, 2005 page 2 SCOPE OF WORK: In preparing this assignment, the following was conducted: inspected the interior and exterior of the subject on September 16, 2005; gathered and confmned information on comparable sales of similar improved properties, in the Town of Wappinger and surrounding townships in Dutchess County; analyzed the information gathered, applying the Sales Comparison Approach to arrive at value indications; REPORT OPTION: This report is a Restricted Use Appraisal Report in accordance with Standards Rule 2-2@) of the Uniform Standards of Professional Appraisal Practice. As such, it presents no discussions of the data, reasoning, and analyses that were used in the appraisal process to develop the appraiser's opinion of value. Supporting documentation concerning the data, reasoning, and analyses is retained in the appraiser's file. illGHEST AND BEST USE: Per NYS Real Property law the property is valued as "in use", Residential - multiple residences. EXTRAORDINARY ASSUMPTIONS: None HYPOTHETICAL ASSUMPTIONS: None OPINION OF VALUE: 2004 Roll January 1,2004 - $390,000; Equalization rate - 48.00%; Assessed Value - $187,000 2005 Roll July 1,2005 - $412,000; Equalization rate - 44.34%; Assessed Value - $182,680 INDICATED EXPOSURE TIME: 6 to 12 months CERTIFICATION: I certify that, to the best of my knowledge and belief: The statements of fact contained in this report are true and correct. The reported analyzes, opinions, and conclusions are limited only by the reported assumptions and limiting conditions, and are my personal, unbiased professional analyzes, opinions, and conclusions. HUBBELL REALTY SERVICES. /NC. , , I , I I i I j J I I I I I I I I I I f f I I I I I I I I I I I I I -, Owen v TIG Wappinger September 23, 2005 page 3 I have no present or prospective interest in the property that is the subject of this report, and I have no personal interest or bias with respect to the parties involved. My engagement in this assignment was not contingent upon developing or reporting predetermined results. My compensation and employment for this appraisal is not contingent upon the reporting of a predetermined, minimum, specific or direction in value that favors the cause of the client, the amount of the value estimate, the attainment of a stipulated result, the occurrence of a subsequent even or the approval of a loan. The reported analyses, opinions, and conclusions were developed, and this report has been prepared, in conformity with the requirements of the Code of Professional Ethics and the Standards of Professional Appraisal Practice of the Appraisal Institute, which include the Uniform Standards of Professional Appraisal Practice. The use of this report is subject to the requirements of the Appraisal Institute relating to review by its duly authorized representatives. I have made a personal inspection of the property that is the subject of this report. No one provided significant professional assistance to the person signing this report other than Wendy Wallace, Staff Appraiser. As of the date of this report, R. Peters HubbelJ, J r. has completed the continuing education program of the Appraisal Institute. Date: 4~ ~;?cm5 Signature: cIl~4~ P'. R. Peters Hubbell, Jr., MAl State Certified General Real Estate Appraiser No. 46..3185 Attachments HUBBELL REALTY SERVICES, INC. . Owen v T/O Wappinger September 23, 2005 page 4 PHOTOGRAPHS OF MAIN HOUSE HUBBEll REALTY SERVICES. INC. I I I I II I I I I II . . . . II II . II . '. Owen v T /0 Wappinger September 23, 2005 page 5 INTERIOR PHOTOGRAPHS OF MAIN HOUSE HUBBEU REALTY SERVICES. INC. .. .. Owen v T/O Wappinger September 23, 2005 page 6 PHOTOGRAPHS OF GUEST HOUSE HUBBELL REALTY SERVICES. INC. I "'. - I . . Owen v TIO Wappinger September 23, 2005 page 7 INTERIOR PHOTOGRAPHS OF GUEST HOUSE I I II I I I I I I I I I I II - - II UPSTAIRS APARTMENT KITCHEN LOWER APARTMENT DEN - CEILING DAMAGE LOWER APARTMENT KITCHEN UPPER APARTMENT BDRM - CEILING DAMAGE HUBBEll REALTY SERVICES. INC. .. - - PROPERTY: CLIENT: PROPERTY TYPE: ITEM DATE: PRICE; LOCATION: LAND SIZE acres: LAND QUALITY ACCESS ZONING: UTILITIES: TOPO VIEWS IMPROVEMENTS QUALITY LAND LIMITATIONS SALE PRICE - - - - r:::l - - - - OWEN PROPERTY 158 OLD POST ROAD TOWN OF WAPPINGER ROBERT A. BUTTS, ATTORNEY MULTIPLE RESIDENCES SUBJECT JANUARY', 2004 158 OLD POST ROAD TOWN OF WAPPINGER 9.03 AVERAGE AVERAGE HD PRI W & S LEVEL TO ROLLING AVERAGE 2 HOUSES FAIR TO POOR NONE NOTED YEAR 2004 - RESIDENnAL GRID SALE 1 SALE 2 JANUARY 2004 $380,000 43 MAURERBROOK DRIVE FISH KILL 6.28 AVERAGE AVERAGE R40 MUN WATER & SEPTIC ROLLING TO SLOPING AVERAGE HOUSE, 2 CAR GAR AVERAGE DRAINAGE EASEMENT $380,000 $380,000 0% 0% 0% 0% 10% 0% 15% -5% 20% $456,000 33.00% $150,480 - - - SALE 3 FEBRUARY 2004 DECEMBER 2004 $440,000 $332,500 361 ALL ANGELS HILL RD DUGAN LANE WAPPINGER 8.01 AVERAGE AVERAGE R40 PRI W & S LEVEL TO ROLLING AVERAGE HOUSE, AVERAGE NONE NOTED $440,000 ADJUSTMENTS MRKT. CONDo LOCATION LAND SIZE ZONING LAND QUALITY LAND LIMITATIONS VIEWS IMPROVEMENTS QUALITY INDICATED VALUE WEIGHTING NET ADJ. $435,600 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 15% -5% 10% $479,160 33.00% $158,123 FINAL VALUE $390,000 WAPPINGER '.3 AVERAGE AVERAGE ROLLING AVERAGE 2 RESIDENCES AVERAGE NONE NOTED $332,500 $297.700 0% -10% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% -5% -15% $253,045 34.00% $86,035 - . .. . , . 100.00% .. f"- . . . . . . ... _._- '_"e..~ PROPERTY: OWEN PROPERTY 158 OLD POST ROAD TOWN OF WAPPINGER YEAR 2005 - RESIDENTIAL GRID CLIENT: ROBERT R. BUTTS, ATTORNEY . PROPERTY TYPE: MULTIPLE RESIDENCES ITEM SUBJECT SALE 1 SALE 2 SALE 3 SALE 4 DATE: JULY 1, 2004 APRIL 2004 MA Y 2004 AUGUST 2004 APRIL 2004 PRICE; $490,000 $376,000 $550,000 $385,000 I LOCATION: 15B OLD POST ROAD 116 DUSTY TRAIL 45 MIDDLEBUSH ROAD 9 OLD ROUTE 9 322 OLD HOPEWELL ROAD TOWN OF WAPPINGER WAPPINGER WAPPINGER WAPPINGER WAPPINGER LAND SIZE acres: 9.03 le.n 1.2 1.1 4.1 . j LAND QUALITY AVERAGE AVERAGE AVERAGE AVERAGE AVERAGE ACCESS AVERAGE AVERAGE AVERAGE AVERAGE AVERAGE ZONING: HD RBO R20 HB1A UTILITIES: PRI W & S PRI W & S PRI W & S PRI W & S MUN WATER & SEPTIC TOPO LEVEL TO ROLLING ROLLING TO SLOPING LEVEL TO ROLLING LEVEL TO ROLLING LEVEL TO ROLLING VIEWS AVERAGE AVERAGE AVERAGE AVERAGE AVERAGE 2 RESIDENCES, SHED 2 RESIDENCES, BARN, 2 RESIDENCES, 3 CAR 7 RENTAlS, 1 CAR GAR RESIDENCE & COTTAGE, IMPROVEMENTS SHED ATTACHED GAR SHED QUALITY FAIR TO POOR AVERAGE AVERAGE AVERAGE AVERAGE LAND LIMITATIONS NONE NOTED NONE NOTED NONE NOTED NONE NOTED NONE NOTED SAlE PRICE $490,000 $376,000 $550,000 $385,000 ADJUSTMENTS MRKT. CONDo $504,847 $383,558 $544,500 $396,666 LOCATION 0% 0% 0% 0% LAND SIZE 10% -10% -10% -5% ZONING 0% 0% 0% 0% LAND QUALITY 0% 0% 0% 0% LAND LIMITATIONS 0% 0% 0% 0% VIEWS 0% 0% 0% 0% IMPROVEMENTS 0% 0% .5% 0% QUAlITY -5% -5% -5% -5% NET ADJ. 5% -15% -20% -10% INDICATED VALUE $530,090 $326,024 $435,800 $356,999 WEIGHTING 25.00% 25.00% 25.00% 25.00% 100.00% . $132,522 $81,506 $108,900 $89,250 FINAL VALUE $412,000 . ) J I Ji , .. - I I - - - II ~ . r.t _... . ...~ . .,. .. ... .. Sales Photographs for 2005 Driveway to house Sale #1-116 Dusty Trail View from house Sale #2 - 45 Middlebush Rd - .. ::- . ., } J ) Ii .J. , . -- . . .. . Sale #3 for year 2005 - 7 buildings ~ , I, , ). , ~ , '; I I I I I . .. r'~ . .., 1 . ". .. .. Sale #4 - 322 Old Hopewell Road, Wappingers . I I I I " ,. ~ " J .,.... ,). '" . '", .. Sales Photographs for 2004 Sale #1 - 43 Maurerbrook Dr., FishkilJ Sale #2 - 361 AU Angels Hill Rd. Wappinger Sale #3 - 13 Dugan Lane, Wappinger - l l t ) I J I I I I I . '.' AI ,... ~. . . :.;. - HUBBELL REALTY SERVICES, INC. Real Estate Appraisal and Counseling 320 MAIN STREET. POUGHKEEPSIE, NY 12601 (845) 454-6525. FAX (845) 454-6359 R. PETERS HUBBELL, JR., MAl QUALIF1CATIONS OF R. PETERS HUBBELL, JR. PROFESSIONAL DESIGNATIONS MAl - Member Appraisal Institute, #9808 January] 993; Past President of Mid-Hudson Chapter CERTIFICATIONS, LICENSES and PROFESSIONAL MEMBERSHIPS New York State Certified General Real Estate Appraiser No. 46-3185 Qualified General Real Estate Appraiser for NYS Department of Transportation American Society of Farm Managers and Rural Appraisers, Candidate Member New York State Society of Real Estate Appraisers GENERAL EDUCATION CORNELL UNIVERSITY - Ithaca, New York - B.S. Agricultural Economics PROFESSIONAL EDUCATION Appraisal Institute: Standards of Professional Practice, Pan B and C; Advanced Income Capitalization; Litigation Valuation Overview; Seminars:"Discounted Cash Flow Analysis,"; "Understanding limited Appraisals-General"; "Special-Purpose Properties"; "New Industrial Valuation"; "Litigation Valuation Overview"; "Eminent Domain and Condemnation Appraising" Society of Real Estate Appraisers: Applied Residential Property Valuation; Principles of Income Property Appraising; Applied Income Property Valuation; Standards of Professional Practice. Part A" Seminars: "Uniform Commercial and Industrial Appraisal Report" Marist College: Clean Water Act; Real Estate Salesperson Course INSTRUCTOR Marist College and Dutchess Community College, School of Adult Education: Real Estate Appraisal Module SEMINAR PRESENTATIONS "Preserving the Family Farm and Your Equity," Dutchess County Cooperative Extension; "Conserving Our Tax Base," DutcbesslUlster Assessors Assoc.; "Basic Commercial Valuation Techniques," New York State Assessors' Assoc. PROFESSIONAL EXPERlENCE Since 1987, engaged exclusively in the appraisal of real estate. Assignments include apartment buildings, retail stores, shopping centers, office buildings, vacant land, farms, agribusiness properties, industrial buildings, single family residences, estates, purchase of development rights, conservation easements, lease fee interest, condemnation, tax certiorari, feasibility and market studies. LmGATION Qualified in United States District Court, New York State Superior Court. Supreme COlDt, Court of Claims