Jacquelyn Owen
SUPREME COURT OF THE ST ATE 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 JACQUELYN OWEN,
NOTICE OF PETITION
Petitioner,
Index No. 2009/ )" g 7'-(
-against-
RECEIVED
JUL 3 0 2009
THE ASSESSOR OF THE TOWN OF WAPPINGER,
DUTCHESS COUNTY, NEW YORK AND THE
BOARD OF ASSESSMENT REVIEW FOR THE
TOWN OF WAPPINGER,
-- -----
TOWN CLEP'<
I,.....'
Respondents.
-----------------------------------------
----------------------------------------
Greetings:
PLEASE TAKE NOTICE that upon the annexed petition, verified the
~);~ay of July, 2009, an application will be made at Special Term of the Supreme Court of the
State of New York in and for the County of Dutchess at 10 Market Street, Poughkeepsie,
Dutchess County, New York, on the 17th day of September, 2009, 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 2009/2010, and for such other and further relief as may be just and proper.
PLEASE TAKE 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
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 JACQUELYN OWEN,
PETITION
Petitioner,
Index No. 2009/
-against -
THE ASSESSOR OF THE TOWN OF WAPPINGER,
DUTCHESS COUNTY, NEW YORK AND THE
BOARD OF ASSESSMENT REVIEW FOR THE
TOWN OF WAPPINGER,
Respondents.
TO THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK, COUNTY OF DUTCHESS:
The petitioner, JACQUELYN OWEN ("Petitioner"), by her attorney, Robert R. Butts,
Esq.. as and for a verified petition in the above matter, hereby alleges as follows:
1. Petitioner resides at 158 Old Post Road, Wappinger Falls, NY 12590 and is the
owner of real property situated in the Town of Wappinger, Dutchess County, New York,
described on the assessment roll of the Town as follows:
JACQUEL YN 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
purposes of taxation.
DIDatalCLlENTSIOwenlTax Certl20091Petition 7-28-09.wpd cal
.
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 of 2009-20 10. The
assessor then tiled the assessment roll with the Town Clerk so that it might be seen and
examined.
4. The land and premises owned by Petitioner were tentatively assessed on the
assessment roll as follows:
Land Val ue
Full Value
$ 170,000
$1,405,000
5. On or about May 22, 2009, 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 26,2009, such complaint was presented at a hearing before the Board of
Assessment Review. Petitioner claimed in her complaint that the estimate of the fair market
value of the property should be $412,000.00. Based upon the applicable equalization rate,
Petitioner's claimed assessment as so presented should be deemed to be $412,000.00.
7. Respondents thereafter made their final determination on Petitioner's complaint,
and on or about July 1, 2009 the assessment roll for the Town for the year 2009-2010 was finally
completed and tiled by respondents.
8. Respondents gave notice of the completion and filing of the assessment roll on or
DIDatalCLIENTSIOwenlTax Certl20091Petition 7-28-09.wpd cal 2
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
$1,405,000
$412,000
$1,405,000
$993,000
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 Petitioner's 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
property of the Petitioner, in the same assessing jurisdiction and in each and every parcel thereof.
IlIDatalCLlENTSIOwenlTax Certl20091Petitioll 7-28-09.wpd cal
"
J
In order that the assessment of Petitioner's 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 rea] property and the remainder of the parcel.
d. Illega]ity 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 Equa] Protection Clause of the New York State Constitution and the United
States Constitution.
] 3. 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.
]4. Petitioner is aggrieved and injured by said unjust, unequal, excessive, illegal,
incorrect and erroneous assessments in that, by reason thereof, Petitioner 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.
] 5. 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.
WHEREFORE, Petitioner prays that said assessment roll be corrected and the assessment
I)\DataICLlENTSIOwenITax Certl20091Petitioll 7-28-09.wpd cal 4
against Petitioner's 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 Petitioner to show the illegality, inequality, over-valuation, and
error of said assessment against Petitioner's real property; that Petitioner 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 'J2, 2009
ROBERT R. BUTTS,
Attorney for Petitioner
75 Washington St., P.O. Box G
Poughkeepsie, New York 12602
(845) 471-1600
D\Data\CLlENTS\Owen\Tax Cert\2009\Petition 7-28-09.wpd cal 5
Verification:
STATE OF NEW YORK )
) ss:
COUNTY OF DUTCHESS )
JACQUEL YN 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.
Swon~ before me this
.~"1 day of July, 2009.
VlM.t~'t ~~
Notary Public
ROBERT R. BUTTS
Notary Public. St.;lte of New Yorlf
No.4fj27089
~ualified i.n Dut~SSI ~~ . J I
CommIssIon Expires ~~
D\Data\CLlENTS\Owen\Tax Certl20091Petition 7-28-09.wpd cal 6
NYS BOARD OF REAL PROPERTY SERVICES
RP-524 (3/09)
COMPLAINT ON REAL PROPERTY ASSESSMENT FOR 20 09
BEFORE THE BOARD OF ASSESSMENT REVIEW FOR TOWN OF WAPPINGER
(city, town village or county)
PART ONE: GENERAL INFORMATION
(General information and instructions for completing this form are contained inform RP-524-Ins)
I. Name and telephone no. of owner(s)
Jacquelyn Owen
2. Mailing Address of owner(s)
158 Old Post Road
Wappingers 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.)
Robert R. Butts, 75 Washington St., Poughkeepsie, NY 12601
(845) 471-1600
4. Property location
158 Old Post Road
Street Address
Village (if any)
Town of Wappinger
City/Town
Dutchess
Wappinger CSD
School District
County
5. Property identification (see tax bill or assessment roll)
Tax map number or section/block/lot 6157-04-649335-00
Type of property:
Residence .f
Farm
Vacant land
Commercial
Industrial
Other
Description: 9 acres, mostly wooded, with two houses, one owner-occupied, the other
vaca nt.
Assessed value appearing on the assessment roll:
6. Land $ 170,000
Total $ 1,405,000
7. Property owner's estimate of market value of property as of valuation date (see instructions) $412,000
RP-S24 (3/09)
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):
1. _ 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: $
3. .f Property has been recently appraised (attach copy): When: 9/05 By Whom: Hubbell Realty Service
Purpose of appraisal: Tax Certiorari
Appraised value: $ 412,000
4. _ Description of any buildings or improvements located on the property, including year of
construction and present condition:
5. _ Buildings have been recently remodeled, constructed or additional improvements made:
Cost $
Date Started:
Date Completed:
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. L Additional supporting documentation (check if attached).
RP-524 (3/09)
3
PART THREE: GROUNDS FOR COMPLAINT
A. UNEQUAL ASSESSMENT (Complete items 1-4)
I. 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 .............. .... .......... ....... ............................. ..... .......... ........... ......... $ 1,405,000
b. Complainant believes that assessment should be reduced to full value of (Part one #7) .............. $ 412,000
c. Attach list of parcels upon which complainant relies for objection, if applicable.
2. _ The taxable assessed val ue is excessive because ofthe denial of all or portion of a partial exemption.
a.Specify exemption (e.g., senior citizens, veterans, school tax relief [STAR])
b. Amount of exemption claimed ............. ..... ................. ....................... .................................... $
c. Amount granted, if any:... ..................... ...... ..... ...... ..... ....................... ..... ...................... ......... $
d. 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 assessluent..... ..... ............... .... ........... ........ ...................... ...... ............. ......... ......... $
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):
-1L- Class designation on the assessment roll: ................... Non-Homestead
1.L- Complainant believes class designation should be .... Homestead
2. X-- The assessed value is improperly allocated between homestead and non-homestead real property.
Allocation of assessed value on assessment roll Claimed allocation
Homestead ........... $ 0.00 412,000.00
Non -Homestead... $ 1,405,000.00 0.00
RP-S24 (3/09)
4
P ART FOUR: DESIGNATION OF REPRESENTATIVE TO MAKE COMPLAINT
I, Jacquelyn Owen omplainant (or officer thereof) hereby
designate Robert R. Butts tnJi) 01'2- Se-12A<t.A) OU.l;p;J" to act as my representative in any and all
proceedings before the board of assessment review of the city/town! lage/county of Wappinger for
purposes of reviewing the assessment of my real property as it appears on the _(year) tentative assessment roll
of such assessing unit. / J~
May 2..1. I 2009 jJ JJ-
Date
PART FIVE: CERTIFICATION
[ 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 wi IIful 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.
May ~, 2009
Date igna e of ow r (or representative)
,1acQuelyn OWen
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 $_
D (Check box if stipulation approves exemption indicated in Part Three, section 8.2. or C.I.)
Complainant or representative
Assessor
Date
SPACE BELOW FOR USE OF BOARD OF ASSESSMENT REVIEW
Disposition
DUnequal assessment DExcessive assessment
D Unlawful assessment o Misclassification
DRatification of stipulated assessmentDNo change in assessment
Reason:
Vote on Complaint
D All concur
DAII concur except:
D against
D abstain
D absent
Name
D against
D abstain
D absent
Name
Tentative assessment
Total assessment $
Transition assessment (if any).. $
Exempt amount........................ $
Taxable assessment.................. $
Decision by
Board of Assessment Review
$
$
$
$
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 2009
RE: VICTOR N. OWEN & JACQUELYN OWEN
158 OLD POST ROAD, W APPINGERS 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 Purpose/Multi
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. (10 Ops 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$1,405,000.00 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 York 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.
D:\Data\CLIENTS\Owen\Tax Cert\2009\Stmt Complaint 5-20-09.wpd cal
Vo~ume 9 - Opinions of Counsel SBRPS No. 45
Page 1 of3
Office of Real Property Services
~yct Rip TU ~q Pobm. P\lblIcatloo.t
&: ltIfo.tJ:Dlltiou &: ~ ok ~
}SA:pl.112&t100 &: Rclu:d
Ta: ~ DiItrlbutlou Si1a
ValQing& ~
Real ~
I
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, ~~1 02(11), 502, 1901:
'M1ere 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.
'Ne 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 Artide 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 ofreal property..." (RPTL, 9102(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, ~339-y [condominium units]; RPTL, 9~102(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-l.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
(RPn, ~502(2)). An adequate description is essential to the enforcement of a delinquent tax lien
against the property (RPTL. ~9557, 1002; 5 Op.Counsel SBEA No. 31). Zoning restrictions are not
Volume 9 - Opinions of Counsel SBRPS No. 45
Page 2 of3
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, ~141). Accordingly, section 1901 ofthe RPTl must be
construed to require 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 parcellS to be allocated between the homestead and non-homestead parts (9 NYCRR 99190-
4 2(a). (c), see also RPTL, 99522(6){c), 701 (5)(c): cf, 7 OpCounsel 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 offour 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 (9)).
Last Modified on: 11/27/200210:46:29
Volume 9 - Opinions dfCourisel SBRPS No. 45
Page 3 of3
Question s/Comments: nvsorps@orps.state.nv.us
Privacv and Securitv Notice I Disdaimer I Coovriaht I Contact Us
Copyrigbt 2006
(518) 474-2982
All Risb R~ed
Vol'WIle 10 - Opinions ofColli'1sel SBRPS No. 45
Page 1 of3
Office of Real Property Services
~JU R.lgbUI Tu Mq ~ Publlc.rlooI
at IafQlDlllldon &: ~ &: ~
Bcpll.u.tIou at Rclall:ld
Tax l..my D!n:ibulioQ SIn
VaJ.u.mc& ~
Red. ~
t
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, 99
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 for 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, ~305(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 ~301)
We have often discussed the meaning of "value" for purposes of real property tal<
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.T. 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 [or)...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 Aporaisal
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.
V ohune 10 - Opinions bf Counsel SBRPS No. 45
Page 2 of3
However, the New York State courts have not adopted highest and best use as the general
standard for tax assessment purposes. In Kalskl v. Fitzaerald, 25 A.D.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 A.D.2d 856,434 N.Y.S.2d 489 (4th Dept, 1980 mot. Iv. to aDD. 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
N.Y.S.2d at 490). The Fourth Department reiterated its conclusion in Farone & Son. Inc. v. Srogi, 96
A.D.2d 711, 465 N.Y.S.2d 373 (4th Dept., 1983).
This "black-letter law" has been followed throughout the State (see,~, BCA-Wlite 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 N.Y.S.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 COrD. 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
MaceJka. 117 A D 2d 896. 498 NY S 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 A.D.2d 20,609 N.Y.S.2d 241 (1st
Dept., 1994), mot. Iv. aDD. 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/B8, 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 A.D.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.1
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
Volume 10 - Opinions of Counsel SBRPS No. 45
Page 3 of3
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. I n 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 N.Y.S. 239 (3d Dept., 1914)).lln 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 CV'kingarten v. Town ofOssinina, 85 A.D.2d 697,445 NY.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
. The Court oi Appeals conhrmed this distinction between valuation In condemnation and valuation
In tax certiorari cases In Allied Corporation v Town ofCamillus, 80 NY 2d 351,604 N E 2d 1348,
590 NY S.2d 417 (1992). r~?ig__Qen. 81 N Y2d 784,610 N E2d 393. 594 NY 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 not 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 NY.S.2d 933 (2d Dept, 1994)).
Last Modified on: 05/13/2005 08:59: 15
Privacy and Securitv Notice I Disdaimer I Coovriaht I Contact Us
Questio ns/Comments: nv soros@oros.state.nv.us
Cop}'fir.h.t 2006
(518) 474-2982
All Ripls Reserved
I
I
I
I
o
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
II
II
II
-
.' .
,
-. all
R. peTCR HUBBELL. JR.. MAl
IruBBELL REALTY SERVICES, INC.
Real Estate Approlsal and Counseling
320 MAIN STREET. POUGHKEEPSIE. NY 12601
lB4S1 454-6525 . F.AX lB4S1 454-6359
E MAl L: InfoOhubbsllrealtyssrvlces.com
APPRAISAL
RESTRICTED REPORT. LIMITED APPRAISAL
GRANT ACKI!.ALY
WeNDY NItSE.L
SUBJECT PROPERTY
Owen Property
158-164 Old Post Road
Town of Wappingers
Dutchess County, New York
CERTIFIED TO
Robert R. Butts
Attorney & Counselor at Law
75 Washington Street
PO Box G
Poul!hkeeosie. NY 12602
I:,
I
II
II
.
II
.
.
.
.
I
.
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Owen v T/O Wappinger
September 23,2005
page]
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 Unifonn 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. TIris report is not intended for any
other use. The appraiser is not responsible for unauthorized
use of this report.
IDENTIFlCATION OF
REA L EST A TE:
Su bject Property:
Owner:
Tax Id. Number:
Current use:
Improvements:
CJ03 acre Improved parcel: Town of Wappinger NY
Ylctor 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.
DATE 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 conrmned 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
indicati ons ~
REPORT OPTION:
TIlls report is a Restricted Use Appraisal Report in
accordance with Standards Rule 2-2@) of the Unifonn
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.
ffiGHEST AND BEST USE:
Per NYS Real Property law the property is valued as "in
use", Residential - multiple residences
EXTRAORDINARY
ASSUMYfIONS:
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
an~yzes, opinions, and conclusions.
HUBBEU REALTY SERVICES. me.
.'
I'
I
I
I:
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
-
Date:
Signature:
Owen v T/O Wappinger
September 23,2005
page 3
I have no present or prospective interest in the property that is the subject of this repo~
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
predetennined 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 Appraisallnstitute relating to
review by its duly authorized representatives.
I have made a personal inspection of the property that is the subject of this report.
~(, I")oe provided SignIficant profeSSional :1<;sl<;[ance 1<.... the person SIgning rh!~ repop .,the'1
(han Wendy Wallace. Staff Appraiser.
)., (li the date IJt lhls report, R. PeLer\ HUflhdl, Jr has Lompleled 'he ,.011tlnulf\g
education program of the Appraisal Institute.
4~A ~ ~5
t#~4~
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
HUBBEU REALTY SERVICES. INC
.1 ·
I
I
I
a
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
II
II
.
.
.
.
Owen v T/O Wappinger
September 23, 2005
page 5
INTERIOR PHOTOGRAPHS OF MAIN HOUSE
HUBBEU REAL1Y SERViCES, lNC,
Owen v T/O Wappinger
September 23. 2005
page 6
PHOTOGRAPHS OF GUEST HOUSE
HUBBELL REALTY SERViCES. /NC.
I
I
Owen v T/O Wappinger
September 23, 2005
page 7
INTERIOR PHOTOGRAPHS OF GUEST HOUSE
I
II
II
-
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
~
-
-
1.1
UPSTAIRS APARTMENT KITCHEN
LOWER APARTMENT DEN - CEll.JNG DAMAGE
LOWER APAR1MENT KITCHEN
UPPER APARTMENT BDRM - CEILING DAMAGE
HUBBEll REALTY SERVICES, /NC.
-= --
PROPERlY:
CUENT:
PROPERTY TYPE:
ITEM
DATE:
PRICE;
LOCATION:
LAND SIZE BcmS:
LAND QUALITY
ACCESS
ZONING:
UTlUTlES:
TOPO
VIEWS
IMPROVEMENTS
QUALITY
LAND UMITATlONS
SALE PRICE
MRKT. CONDo
LOCATlON
LAND SIZE
ZONING
LAND aUAUTY
LAND UMITATlONS
VIEWS
IMPROVEMENTS
OUALITY
INDICATED VALUE
- --
-
OWEN PROPERTY
158 OLD POST ROAD
TOWN OF WAPPINGER
ROBERT R. BlITTS, ATTORNEY
MULTIPLE RESIDENCES
SUBJECT
JANUARY 1,2004
158 OLD POST ROAD
TOWN OF WAPPINGER
9.03
AVERAGE
AVERAGE
HD
PRI W & S
LEVEL TO ROWNG
AVERAGE
2 HOUSES
FAIR TO POOR
NONE NOlE>
NET ADJ.
WEIGHTING
~
-
-
-
- --
-
-
JANUARY 2004
$380,000
43 MAURERBROOK DRIVE
FISH KILL
B.2B
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
-
YEAR 2004 - RESIDENTIAL GRID
SALE 1
SALE 2
SALE 3
FEBRUARY2~ DECEMBER2~
$440,000 $332.500
361 ALL ANGELS HILL AD DUGAN LANE
W APPINGEA W APPINGEA
8.01 1.3
AVERAGE AVERAGE
AVERAGE AVERAGE
R40
PRI W & S
LEVEL TO ROLLING ROWNG
AVERAGE AVERAGE
HOUSE, 2 RESIDENCES
AVERAGE AVERAGE
NONE NOTED NONE NOTED
$440,000 $332,500
ADJUSTMEm-S
$435,600 $297,700
00' 0%
10
00) -10%
.0
0%) 0%
00: 0%
'0
O~/~ 0%
O~~ 0%
15% 0%
.5% -5%
10% .15%
:~479,160 $253,045
1300% 34.00%
~15B,123 $86,035
FINAL VALUE
I.. $390,000
100.00%
-
-
r- · · · · · ., .. · -. - _.~.
PROPERTY:
OWEN PROPERTY
158 OLD POST ROAD
TOWN OF WAPPINGER
,
CLIENT: ROBERT R. BlITTS. ATIORNEY
PROPERTY TYPE: MUL T1PLE RESIDENCES
ITEM SUBJECT SALE 1 SALE 2 SALE 3 SAlE 4
DATE: JULY 1, 2004 APRIL 2004 MA'\ 2(11)" AUGUST 2004 APRIL 2004
PRICE; $490,000 $376,000 $550,000 $385.000
LOCATION: 158 OLD POST ROAD 116 DUSTY TRAIL 45 MIDDLEBUSH ROAD 9 OLD ROUTE 9 322 OLD HOPEWEll ROAD
TOWN OF WAPPINGER WAPPINGER WAPPINGER WAPPINGER WAPPINGEA
LAND SIZE acres: 9.03 18.n 12 1.1 4.1
LAND QUALITY AVERAGE AVERAGE AVERAGE AVERAGE AVERAGE
ACCESS AVERAGE AVERAGE AVERN3E AVERAGE AVERAGE
ZONING: HD ABO R20 HB1A
UTILmes: PRI W & s PAl W & s PRI W & s PAl W & 5 MUN WATER & SEPTIC
TOPO LEVEL TO ROWNG AOWNG TO SLOPING LEVEL TO ROLLING LEVEL TO ROlUNG 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
OUALITY FAIR TO POOR AVERAGE AVERAGE AVERAGE AVERAGE
lAND LIMITATIONS NONE NOTED NONE NOTED NONE NOTED NONE NOTED NONE NOTED
SAlE PRICE $4QO,ooo $375,000 f560,OOO $385,000
ADJUSTMENTS
MRKT. CONDo $604,847 $383,5Se $544,500 $396,866
LOCATION 0% 0% 0% 0%
LAND SIZE 10% 10% -10% -5%
ZONING 0% 1)% 0% 0%
LAND QUALITY 0% 00' 0% 0%
'0
LAND LIMITATIONS 0% 0%, 0% 0%
VIEWS 0% 00.'l"l 0% 0%
IMPROVEMENTS 0% 1)(,/0 -6% 0%
OUALITY -5% .5L}~ -5% -5'Y.
NET ADJ. 5% 150/0 -2Q% -10%
INDICATED VAlUE $530,090 $326,02.1 $435,600 $356,999
WEIGHTING 25.00% 2500% 25.00% 25.00% 100.00%
$132,522 $81.506 $108,900 $89.250
r FINAL VALUE
I $412,000
YEAR 2005 - RESIDENTIAL GRID
.
)'
J
I
Jl
,
-
I
I
I
-
II
.
-
.
Sales Photographs for 2005
Driveway to house
Sale #1-116 Dusty Trail
View from house
Sale #2 - 45 Middlebush Rd
.. .
J ~
)
)"
t
--
.
.
Sale #3 for year 2005 - 7 buildings
J
~
~
(
~
.
,
!
I
I
I
I
I
.
Sale #4 - 322 Old Hopewell Road, Wappingers
'-
t.
.
...
Sales Photographs for 2004
Sale #1 - 43 Maurerbrook Dr.,
FishkiU
Sale #2 - 361 All Angels Hill Rd.
Wappinger
Sale #3 - 13 Dugan Lane, Wappinger
"l'" ,~
t
l
)
I
I
J
J
I
I
I
I
J
"
...
..
.
HUBBELL REALTY SERVICES, INC.
R~al Emlt~ AppraiJal and COll1Ueling
320 MAIN STREET- POUGHKEEPSIE, NY 12601
(845) 454-6525 · FAX (845) 454-6359
R. PETERS HUBBELL, JR., MAl
QUALIFICATIONS OF
R. PETERS HUBBELL, JR.
PROFESSIONAL DESIGNATIONS
MAl - Member Appraisal Institute, /#9808 January 1993; Past President of Mid-Hndson Chapter
CERTIFICATIONS, LICENSES and PROFFSSIONAL MEMBERSHIPS
New York. State Certified General Real Estate Appraiser No. 46- 3185
Qualified General Roa1 Estate Appraiser fur NYS Department of'I'ranaportation
American Society of Farm Managen and Rural Appraisers, Candidate Membez
New York State Society of Real Estate Appraisers
GENERAL EDUCATION
CoRNELL UNIVJ!:RSrry - Ithaca. New York- B.S. Agricultural Economics
PROFESSlONAL EDUCATION
Appraisal Institute: Standards of Professional Practice, Part Band C; Advanced lnc~me
Capitalization; Litigation Valuation Overview; Seminars:"Discounted Cash Flow Analysis, ";
"Understanding limited Appraisals-General"; "Special-Purpose Properties"; "New Industrial
Valuatlon", 'Litigation Valuation Overview", "Eminent DOIDilln and CondemnatJon AppralSlng
Society of ReaJ Estate Appraisers: Applied Residenllal Propeny Valuation; Principles of Income
Properry Appraising; Applied Income Propeny Valuation; Standards of Professional Pracnce. ?Iln A
Seminars: 'Uniform Commercial and liJdustrial 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 Coopecative Extension;
"Consecving Our Tax Base." Dutches8lU1ster Assessors Assoc.; "Basic Commercial Valuation
Techniquea," New York State Asaeascn' Assoc.
PROFESSIONAL EXPERIENCE
Since 1987, engaged exclusively in the appraisal ofreal 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.
LITIGATION
Qualified in United States District Co1.Ut, New Yark State SUperior Court., Supreme Court., Court of
Claims