A.R. Fuels, Inc.(Village Crest Apts.)
A-L
1" .i
SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK
COUNTY OF DUTCHESS File 16794
__________________________________X
In the Matter of
A.R. FUELS, INC. (VILLAGE CREST
APTS.) NOTICE OF PETITION
Petitioner,
., X7<7_ - ~("
Index #~~ .
-against-
THE BOARD OF ASSESSORS AND THE
'BOARD OF ASSESSMENT REVIEW OF THE
TOWN OF WAPPINGER,
Tax Description:
Grid # 6259-02-635855, etc.
Respondents.
__________________________________X
NOTICE BY:
Petitioner, A.R. FUELS, INC. (VILLAGE
CREST APTS.)
DATE. TIME & PLACE
OF HEARING:
September 29, 2006, at 9:30 AM or on such
other date as specified by the Court;
Special Term for Tax Certiorari, Supreme
Court, Co. Court House, poughkeepsie, NY
SUPPORTING PAPERS:
Notice of petition and Petition dated
July 9, 2006
RELIEF REOUESTED:
(A) An Order pursuant to the Real
Property Tax Law correcting and reducing
the subject assessment as more fully set
forth in the petition; and
(B) An adjournment of the proceeding
without date or referral to the trial
calendar without date.
(C) For such other and further relief
as the Court deems just and proper.
Dated: Garden City, New York
July 9, 2006
SIEGEL FENCHEL & PEDDY,
Attorney for petitioner
249 South Street
Oyster Bay, NY 11771
(516) 294-8880
P.cg
r::T'
~
CJ
OC
,--\
m("')
::0::0:0:
fT\~r-:
- ("') _ (,11
0) rn Vi (/)
:200
f"!1-r', C)
o-nc
o';t:
""-!l
....<.
..."
:s:
r
..
TO:
Emanuel F. Saris, Esq.
Vergilis Stenger Roberts
Attorney for Respondent
1136 Route 9
Wappinger Falls, NY 12590
RECEIVED
JUL 2 7 2006
TOWN CLERK
N
(:)
.' SUPREME COURT: STATE OF NEW YORK: COUNTY OF Dutchess
16794
Wappinger Central Sc
In the Matter of PETITION
A.R. Fuels, Inc. (Village Crest Apts.)
Petitioner,
Tax Year: 2006/07
-against-
The Board of Assessors and the
Board of Assessment Review of the
Town of Wappinger
Index No.
Respondent.
The petitioner above named, by his attorney,
Siegel Fenchel . Peddy, P.C.
respectfully alleges as follows:
1. At all times herein mentioned, petitioner was and still is a tax-
payer of the municipality whose Board of Assessors is the respondent
herein (hereinafter referred to as lithe assessing jurisdiction") and
is an aggrieved party with respect to the assessment within the
meaning of Section 706, Real Property Tax Law, State of New York.
2. The respondents have heretofore prepared, completed and perfected,
purportedly according to law, an assessment roll for the assessing
jurisdiction, for the tax year 2006/07 which assessment roll included
an assessment for petitioner's real property, described in Column I
and assessed as set forth in Column II of the following schedule:
( I) (II) (III) ( IV) (V)
TAX DESC. ORIGINAL CLAIMED CONFIRMED EXTENT OF
VALUATION** VALUATION VALUATION * OVERVALUATION
(*Same as Column II except as otherwise indicated; **See next page)
GRID# 19-6259-02-635855-00
LAND $ 395,OOO}$ 98,750 $ 296,250
TOTAL $ 1,750,000 $ 437,500 $ 1,312,500
GRID# 19-6259-02-538866-00 ~
LAND $ 45,OOOj$ 11,250 $ 33,750 c::o 0
c::::J
TOTAL $ 45,000 $ 11,250 $ 33,750 cr (")c
f- ,--'
c: ::o1"""1{j
GRID# 19-6259-02-593861-00 r- ",::o:I:
LAND $ 112,500 j $ 28,125 $ 84,375 co (")~l""'1
I'T1tiU>
TOTAL $ 437,000 $ 109,250 $ 327,750 _ <f)
-0 <00
X l'T1-"o
GRID# 19-6259-02-705840-00 or:- o~c:
LAND $ 175,000 J $ 43,750 $ 131,250 .. nZ
N 1'T1--1
TOTAL $ 1,725,000 $ 431,250 $ 1,293,750 C) -<
GRID# 19-6259-02-753743-00
LAND $ 76,000 J $ 19,000 $ 57,000
TOTAL $ 76,000 $ 19,000 $ 57,000
GRID# 19-6259-02-583857-00
LAND $ 800 j $ 200 $ 600
TOTAL $ 800 $ 200 $ 600
GRID# 19-6259-02-575863-rO
LAND $ 105,000 $ 26,250 $ 78,750
TOTAL $ 587,000 $ 146,750 $ 440,250
TOTAL AV : $4,706,8{)0
(--Schedule continued on next page- -)
,>
rITION SCHEDULE (CONTINUED) PAGE# 2
16794 A.R. Fuels, Inc. (Village Crest AptS.)
(I) (II)
TAX DESC. ORIGINAL
VALUATION**
(*Same as Column II except
GRID# 19-6259-02-564876-00
LAND $ 37,000 $
TOTAL $ 37,OOOJ $
GRID# 19-6259-02-544878-00
LAND $ 48,500j $
TOTAL $ 49,000 $
(III) (IV) (V)
CLAIMED CONFIRMED EXTENT OF
VALUATION VALUATION* OVERVALUATION
as otherwise indicated; **See next page)
9,250
9,250
12,125
12,250
$
$
27,750
27,750
$
$
36,375
36,750
3. Your petitioner duly made and filed with respondent a written application and statement under oath, to have said
assessed valuation and transitional assessment, if applicable, of said real property corrected and revised, specifying
therein the respect in which the assessment complained of was i,ncorrect, and which application and statement sought
to reduce the assessment complained ofas set forth in colunm 111 of paragraph 2 above. The said application and
statement are hereby referred to and made part of this application as though fully set forth herein.
4. Upon information and belief, a final decision and determination on the said application and statement were duly
rendered by the respondent who failed and refused to correct or reduce the said assessment as requested and
confirmed the said assessed valuation of petitioner's property as set forth in column IV of paragraph 2 above.
5. Thirty (30) days have not elapsed since the filing ofthe certified copy of the completed and verifi~d,assessment
roll as required by law.
6. The said assessment of your petitioner's property is erroneous upon the following grounds: (a) Excessive
Assessment (Overvaluation) (to the extent set forth in column V of paragraph 2 above); (b) Misclassification in
that petitioner's property has been classified as being all or in part in classes two, three or four instead of the
appropriate class for petitioner's property; (c) UneQual Assessment (lnequality) (to the extent set forth in column V
of paragraph 2 above), in that it has been made at a higher proportionate value than the assessments of other real
property in the assessing jurisdiction made by the respondent; the specified instances of such inequality are the
assessments orall ofthe real property in the assessing jurisdiction and each and every parcel thereof; andlor, in the
alternative, at the election of the petitioner, that said assessment has been made at a higher proportionate valuation
than the assessment of other real property in the same -class on the same roll by the same officers; the specified
instances of such inequality are the assessments of all other real property in the same class in the same assessing
jurisdiction and each and every parcel thereof; and (d) Unlawful Assessment (111egality) in that this property and all
real property in the assessing unit is not assessed at a unifonn percentage of value, as required by RPTL 305(2); and
that the base proportion for the appropriate class for petitioner's property was established andlor adjusted in an
erroneous, arbitrary and capricious manner.
7. Your petitioner is aggrieved and injured by said unjust; unequal, excessive, illegal, misclassified and erroneous
assessment, and will bt required to pay a greater amount and proportion of taxes than your petitioner would be
required to pay ifthe said assessment had been just and equal.
8. No provision is made by law for an appeal or other relief from the final determination of the' respondent except by
a review by petition to the Supreme Court, and no previous application for the relief herein asked has been made to
any court or judge.
9. Ifthere is more than one petitio,ner herein, the word "petitioner" shall mean "petitioners" or each of "petitioners,"
as the context requires.
WHEREFORE, your petitioner prays that the Supreme Court review and correct on the merits the aforementioned
final determination ofthe respondent 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, misclassified and erroneous assessment of the
said real property tO,the end that the assessment may be reduced to the full, true and market value thereof for land
and improvements, and to a valuation proportionate to the assessments of other real property, andlor all other
property in the same class, assessed on the same rolls for the. same year, so that equality of assessments will result,
and be properly classified, and for such other and further relief as the Court may deem proper, together with the costs
and disbursements of this proceeding.
Siegel Fenchel & Peddy, P.C.
Attorney for Petitioner
249 South Street
Oyster Bay, NY 11771
SUHOLKU)
"
SUPREME COURT: STATE OF NEW YORK
COUNTY OF Dutchess
________________________________________X
In the Matter of
A.R. Fuels, Inc. (Village Crest Apts.)
16794
PETITION
Petitioner,
Tax Year 2006/07
-against-
THE BOARD OF ASSESSORS AND THE
BOARD OF ASSESSMENT REVIEW OF
THE Town of Wappinger
Respondents.
________________________________________X
***Attorneys for petitioner***
Siegel Fenchel ~ Peddy. P.C.
249 South Stre.t
Oyster Bay. NY 11771
(516)294-8880
VERIFICATION
State of New York, County of Nassau) ss.:
The undersigned being duly sworn, deposes and says; I am the agent
for the petitioner herein. I have read the foregoing petition and
know the contents thereof; the same is true to my own knowledge,
except as to matters therein stated to be alleged upon information
and belief and, that as to those matters, I believe it to be true.
The reason this verification is made by me and not by petitioner is
that all the material allegations (except as to those matters of
public record) of said petition are within my personal k wledge.
Sworn to before
day of July
EYDIE S. HARDAMON
Notary Public, State of New York
No. 01 HA6032277
Qualified In Nassau County
Commission expires October 25. 2008
NOTICE OF PETITION
TO THE RESPONDENTS NAMED WITHIN: PLEASE TAKE NOTICE THAT, upon the
annexed verified petition, an application will be made, pursuant to
the provisions of the Real Property Tax Law, at a Special Term for
Tax certio~ari~f this Court, to be held at the courthouse thereof,
on S.12.-/>-r- :' I 2006 at 9:30 a.m., or on such other date as specified
by the Court, for the relief prayed for in said petition, upon the
grounds set forth therein, and for such other and further relief as
may be just and proper in the premises.
Dated: July 9, 2006
,
." '.' ...
16794
SHIELDS, R
A UTHORIZA TION
The undersigned, being an aggrieved person within the meaning of the Real Property Tax Law, or an officer or partner
of such aggrieved person, hereby retains and authorizes: Siegel Fenchel & Peddy, P.C.
or any attorney employed by such firm, to act as our agent to:
(1) Make and serve a statement (also known as a complaint or protest) pursuant to Section 512(1) of the RPTL,
specifying the respect in which the assessment of the property listed below is illegal, erroneous, or unequal; and
(2) Verify, serve and file a petition for review of real property assessment pursuant to Article 7 of the Real Property
Tax Law.
(3) Such firm is authorized to represent the undersigned in all proceedings before the Board of Assessment Review
and the Supreme Court, State of New York, and all appeals therefrom.
(4) In respect to prior proceedings filed on behalf of the undersigned and/or any affiliate thereof, by any other
attorney, Siegel Fenchel & Peddy, P.C.
..be and is hereby further authorized to execute any and all documents necessary to appear as and to be designated
as counsel, including consents to change attorney, and be and is hereby authorized to act as counsel for the
undersigned in all such prior proceedings.
Dated: ---11 J J ~ I e;(
~~~
Capacity: 0 Member or manager of a limited liability company (LLC) 0 General Partner of taxpayer
.q>Officer of a corporate taxpayer 0 Officer of taxpayer's corporate member or partner
D Officer of condominium association 0 Other
This authorization pertains to administrative and judicial Article 7 RPTL proceedings to review County, Town,
Village and/or City assessments for tax status dates in the 2006 calendar year.
January 2, 2006
This authorization applies to: Rte 376/510 Maloney Rd, Poughkeepsie
County of: Dutchess
Town/City of: Wappinger
School District: Wappinger Central Schools
Village of:
Tax Descriptions:
GRID# 19-6259-02-635855-00
GRID# 19-6259-02-538866-00
GRID# 19-6259-02-593861-00
GRID# 19-6259-02-705840-00
GRID# 19-6259-02-753743-00
GRID# 19-6259-02-583857-00
GRID# 19-6259-02-575863-00