Loading...
HSBC Bank USA 100 - 450 . ~ SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK COUNTY OF DUTCHESS - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - --X In the Matter of the Application of: NOTICE OF PETITION AND PETITION HSBC BANK USA, NATIONAL ASSOCIATION Petitioner, Index # 0 ,- 3fr-/t; -against- Tax Year 2006/07 THE ASSESSOR, THE BOARD OF ASSESSORS AND THE BOARD OF ASSESSMENT REVIEW OF THE TOWN OF WAPPINGER AND THE TOWN OF WAPPINGER Respondents. For Review of a Tax Assessment Under Article 7 of the Real Property Tax Law. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -.- - - - --X SIR S PLEASE TAKE NOTICE that upon the annexed Petition, application will be made at Special Term of the Supreme Court of the State of New York to be held at the Courthouse located in the State of New York, County of DUTCHESS, 10 MARKET STREET,POUGHKEEPSIE on the 30 day of August 2006 at the opening of Court on that day or as soon thereafter as counsel can be heard, for review under Article 7 of the Real Property Tax Law of the assessment upon Petitioner's real prop~rty described in the petition, and for such other and further relief as the Court may deem just and proper. DATED: 7/10/06 Yours, etc. CRONIN, CRONIN, & HARRIS, P.C. Attorneys for Petitioner 200 Old Country Road Mineola, New York 11501 ***DUPLICATE*** RECEIVED JUL 1 8 2006 TOWN CLERK The aforementioned Petitioner, by its attorney, CRONIN, CRONIN &: RARRIS, P.C., respectfully alleges as follows: 1. The aforementioned Petitioner, whose post office address is clo CRONIN, CRONIN & HARRIS, P.C., 200 Old Country Road, Mineo1a, New York 11501, at all t~ef herein mentioned, was and still is an aggrieved party under section 704 and 706 oj the RPTL with respect to the assessment roll set forth in the schedule in thi! petition. 2. The Respondents prepared and completed, according to law, a tentativE assessment roll for the assessing jurisdiction for the year set forth on the covel page of this petition and notice of petition, which assessment roll included aI assessment for Petitioner's real property, described in the following schedule. 3. If there be more than one Petitioner herein, the word "Pe~iti0ner" shal: mean "Petitioners" or "each of the Petitioners", whenever the sense and context so requires. 4. If there be more than one assessment herein, the word "assessment" shalJ mean "assessments" or "each of the assessments", whenever the sense and context so requires. 5. If there be more than one property herein, the word "property" shalJ mean "propertiesf' or "each of the properties", whenever the 'sense and context se requires. 6. Respondents are authorized to assess real property in said jurisdiction. 7. Respondents are authorized to hear and determine complaints in relatior. to assessment and has all of the powers and duties imposed by the Real Property T~ Law. B. The Respondents prepared and completed a tentative assessment roll of all real property in said jurisdiction for the tax year as set forth on the attachec schedule. 9. On or before Grievance Day, Petitioner protested said assessment b: filing with Respondents a written application for correction of the assessee valuation(s), in which application was included a statement, under oath, specifyinS the respects i.n which said assessment was incorrect and a request that saie assessment be corrected and reduced as set forth in the aforementioned schedule Said application and statements are hereby referred to and made a part of thil Petition as if fully set forth berein. 10. The said application and statements were received by Respondents, wi thou' objection, within the time f~ed by law for the making and hearing of complaints il respect to assessments. 11. A final decision and determination of the assessments of said rea. prop~rties were duly rendered by Respondents, who failed to correct and reduce saie assessment as requested and finally completed and filed the assessment roll a: required by law to the amount set forth in the afor~entioned schedule. 12. Thirty (30) days has not elapsed since the latter of the final completiol and filing of the assessment roll and the giving of notice thereof as required b: law, or, the final day set by law for the filing of the assessment roll. 13. The Petitioner herein alleges that a common question of law or fac' exists pursuant to RPTL Section 706(2). 14. The said assessment of your Petitioner's property on the assessment rol: as finally completed is incorrect and erroneous upon the following grounds: (a) Excessive to the extent set forth in the aforementioned scheduled. (b) Unequal to the extent set forth in the aforementioned scheduled in that therl is an inequality of assessments, the Petitioner's assessment having been made at i 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 ..."'",<::"''''....=.....'-''' UL. C1.....L UJ.. Lne reaL property and/or other real property in the same class other than the property of Petitioner in the assessing jurisdiction and in each and every parcel thereof. In order that the assessment of Petitioner's real property be made proportionate to assessments of all of the 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) Illegality to the extent set forth in the aforementioned schedule in that subject property is being assessed in an erroneous, arbitrary, and capricious manner. (d) 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. (e) Illegal and unconstitutional to the extent that the Petitioner's property has been reevaluated by the Respondents, and on information and belief, no improvements had been made by Petitioner and no construction of any structure had occurred which could justify the increase in assessment. 15. While confirming the increased assessment placed upon Petitioner's real property, on information and belief, the Respondent Assessor{s) did not engage in any market reevaluation as to lots that are similar to those owned by the Petitioner. 16. If the assessment at issue is a transitional assessment, such assessment is excessive, erroneous and illegal in that it exceeds the permissible transitional increase as set forth in the Real Property Tax Law. 17. Your Petitioner is aggrieved and injured by said unjust, unequal, excessive, illegal, incorrect and erroneous assessment in that, by reason thereof, Petitioner 'will be compelled to pay a greater amount and proportion of taxes based C=~4~~UU~~ wou~a De required to pay if sai . . assessment had bean just, fair, equal and correct. lB. No provision is made by law for an appeal or other relief from the fina determination of Respondents, except by a review by petition to the Supreme Court and no previous application for the relief herein asked has been made to any cour or Judge. 19. The assessment is excessive and illegal in that Petitioner is denied th benefit of a RPTL ~485-b New Construction Exemption even though the Petitione complied with all the requirements set forth therein and that the construction i completed in accordance with RPTL ~4B5-b. 20. The. Petitioner's real property has been misclassified_ The clas designation of Petitioner's real property results in an incorrect allocation of th real property's assessed valuation between two or more classes. The criteria use by the Respondents for the determination by tax class is arbitrary, capricious an unlawful. 21. The Agricultural Exemption is improperly implemented in that it omitte acreage as not qualified for the exemption even though this acreage is used soleI for agricultural use. WHEREFORE, your Petitioner prays that the Supreme Court review and correct 0 the merits the aforementioned final determination of the Respondents on the ground set forth in this Petition, and that the said Court take evidence to enable you Petitioner to show the unjust, unequal, excessive, illegal, misclassified an erroneous assessment of the said real property to the end that the assessment ma be reduced to the full, true and market value thereof for land and improvements an to a valuation proportionate to the assessments of other real property, and/or al other property in the same class, assessed on the same rolls for the same year, s that equality of assessments will result, and may be properly classified, and fo inddtsbursements of this proceeding. .---- -- --- -~~~ =~x U~em proper, together with the cos CRONIN, CRONIN &: RAIUUS, p. C . Attorneys for Petitioner 200 Old Country Road, Suite 570 Mineola, New York (516) 747-7800 STATE OF NEW YORK ) ss. : COUNTY OF NASSAU ) SEAN M. CRONIN, being duly sworn, deposes and says: That deponent is the agent for the Petitioners herein, that deponent has read the foregoing Notice of Petition and Petition and knows the contents thereof; that the same is true to deponent's own knowledge, except as to matters therein stated to be alleged upon information and belief, and that as to those matters, deponent believes it to be true; and that the reason this verification is made by deponent and not by the Petitioners is that all the material allegations (except those as to matters of public record) of said Petition are within the personal knowledge of deponent. /'d ~~. SEAN M. CRONIN Sworn JlJt~ to before me this y of ~~ Notary Public EILEEN M. BELDING Notary Public, State of New York No. 01BE4992761 Qualified in Nassau County Commission Expires March 2, 2010 100 - 450 1 ' . 1 ***DUPLlCATE*** Des 6158-19-532136- #2 1 HP #3 Tentative AV Claimed AV $420,000 $42,000 Final AV $420,000 11111 11111111111111111111111111 II I1111I Ineq/OvVal $378,000 . . \ \ \ CRONIN, CRONIN & HARRIS, P.C. IS HEREBY AUTHORIZED to file and verify as agent complaints and petitions for the reduction of real estate taxes for the following property and to represent the petitioner in all appeals therefrom. CLIENT ID#: 116089 PROPERTY LOCATION: 1555 ROUTE 9 WAPPINGER FALLS, NY COUNTY: DUTCHESS TOWNMLLAGE W APPINGERIW APPINGER FALLS (SWIS) 135601 S.D. Desc#l #2 135601 6158-19-532136- 0001 HP #3 1 DATED: 1/02/06 TOTAL PARCELS 1 PETITIONER: HSBC BANK USA, NATIONAL ASSOCIATION BY~ ~ /JJ--- TITLE: Michael L. Gembecki first Vice President Our File# 100 - 450 410 ( 18) 11111111111111111111111111111111111 1II1