Imperial Gardens, LLC (2)
SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK
COUNTY OF DUTCHESS
______________________________________________1
In the Matter of the Application of 1
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
For a Review under Article 7 of the RPTL. I
----------------------------------------------1
INDEX NO .-'54 3~~ - cCi
Petitioner(s)
ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2009
NOTICE OF APPLICATION
FOR REVIEW OF TAX
ASSESSMENTS
'C-?>
..->
lD #6158-19-722118, 6~19-689109
& 6158-20-751120 C-';:' "
\-
t"
o
IMPERIAL GARDENS, LLC
-against-
THE TOWN OF WAPPINGER,
A MUNICIPAL CORPORATION,
ITS ASSESSOR AND BOARD OF
AND THE WAPPINGER CENTRAL
ASSESSMENT REVIEW,
SCHOOL DISTRICT
Respondents,
~
..
0'
o
PLEASE TAKE NOTICE, that upon the annexed Petition, duly verified
July 8, 2009, an application will be made by the attorney set forth
below at a Special Term of the Supreme Court of the State of New York,
on September 9, 2009, at 9: 30 0' clock in the forenoon thereof or as
soon as counsel can be heard, for a review under Article 7 of the Real
Property Tax Law of the State of New York of the tax assessment(s) of
certain real property (s) of the Petitioners situated in the above
captioned Municipal Corporation located in the County of Dutchess,
State of New York, appearing upon its assessment rolls, and being the
real property more particularly described in the annexed Petition, to
the end that all proceedings, decisions and actions in the matter of
the said assessment(s) and assessment rolls of said property(s) may be
reviewed, reduced, corrected, modified, vacated, be adjudged illegal,
null and void on the merits by such Court as alleged in the said
Petition and for such further and other relief as will be applied for
and as may be just and proper in the premises.
Dated:
New York, New York
July 8, 2009
Brandt, Steinberg & Lewis LLP
Attorneys for Petitioner(s)
386 Park Avenue South, Suite 600
New York, New York 10016
Respondents above named (212) 563-2200
TO: ~own of Wappinger Attorney
20 Middlebush Road RECEIVEu
wappinger Falls, New York 12590
JUL 2 0 2009
TI)'f'f~l CLEP.~
SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK
COUNTY OF DUTCHESS
______________________________________________1
In the Matter of the Application of I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
1
I
1
1
For a Review under Article 7 of the RPTL. 1
----------------------------------------------1
PETITION FOR REVIEW
OF TAX ASSESSMENTS
IMPERIAL GARDENS, LLC
ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2009
Petitioner(s)
lD #6158-19-722118,6158-19-689109
& 6158-20-751120
-against-
THE TOWN OF WAPPINGER,
A MUNICIPAL CORPORATION,
ITS ASSESSOR AND BOARD OF
AND THE WAPPINGER CENTRAL
ASSESSMENT REVIEW,
SCHOOL DISTRICT
Respondents,
TO THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK:
The petitioner above-named respectfully shows:
FIRST: That at all times hereinafter mentioned Petitioner was and is
the individual or domestic corporate owner or lessee obligated to pay taxes
on certain property located within the tax district of the Respondent
Municipal Corporation set out, described and designated herein on Schedule A.
SECOND: That the Assessor or Board of Assessors of the Respondent
Municipal Corporation, ascertained all the real property located therein and
the names of the owners thereof; and on or before the time prescribed by law
assessed all real property situated therein not exempt by law from taxation;
and made, prepared and completed the tentative 2009 assessment rolls of said
Municipal Corporation and deposited them in his/her or their office for
examination. That the actual assessment and/or transition assessment is
excessive because of a failure to comply with the provisions of Real Property
Tax Law ("RPTLU), section 1904.
If the assessing jurisdiction is a special assessing unit as defined by
the RPTL, the actual assessment and/or transition assessment is excessive
because of failure to comply with the methods of computation and limitations
on increases in assessed value set forth in RPTL section 1805.
THIRD: That the assessment and descriptions on said assessment rolls
for each Petitioner's real property as the same appeared thereon were as
listed herein on Schedule A.
FOURTH: That each Petitioner or its authorized agents or attorneys
examined said assessments and descriptions and within the time allowed
therefor, said Petitioner (s), their authorized agents or attorneys having
knowledge of the facts, protested and complained of said assessments and made
1
application to have them corrected and reduced to their correct assessed
values upon the grounds that they were unequal, excessive and unlawful and
Petitioner(s), their authorized agents or attorneys, filed with the Board of
Assessors or Assessor, of the Respondent Municipal Corporation a complaint or
statement under oath, specifying the respects in which the assessments
complained of were incorrect and obj ecting and protesting against the same
and requesting that said assessments be reduced to the correct valuations
listed on Schedule A. That the said complaint or statement under oath was
made and filed in compliance with the Real Property Tax Law of the State of
New York and with such provisions of Charter, Local Law and Ordinances of the
Respondent Municipal Corporation as may apply and as may be valid.
FIFTH: That the said Board of Review and Assessor or Board of
Assessors denied each of Petitioner's applications to reduce the assessed
values of its property to said requested correct assessed values. That the
Assessor and Board of Assessors and/or Board of Assessment Review, on or
before the time prescribed by law, made and completed the final assessment
rolls of its taxing unit. That the Board of Assessors or Assessor verified
said rolls and duly made and subscribed his or their oaths thereto pursuant
to Section 514 or 1406 of the Real Property Tax Law of the State of New York
substantially as follows: I (We), the undersigned, do (severally) depose and
swear that, to the best of my (our) knowledge and belief, I (we) have set
forth in the foregoing assessment rolls all the real property situated in the
assessing unit in which I am (we are) assessor(s), and with the exception of
changes made by a board of review and special franchises assessed by the
state board, I (we) have estimated the value of such real property at the
sums which I (we) have determined to be in accordance with section three
hundred five of the real property tax law, That the Assessor or the Board of
Assessors thereafter filed said assessment rolls or certified copies thereof
and delivered same to their Clerk. That the assessments and descriptions on
the final assessment rolls of each Petitioner's real property is listed
herein on Schedule A.
SIXTH: That the final assessments of Petitioner's real property are
erroneous by reason of unequal assessment, excessive assessment and unlawful
assessment, That the said real property is actually of an assessable value
not exceeding those values listed as Requested Correct Valuation(s) on
Schedule Ai and that the extent of such over-assessments are listed herein on
Schedule A.
SEVENTH: That the assessments of Petitioner's real property are
unequal in that they have been made at a higher proportionate value than the
assessments of other real property on the same rolls by the same offices,
That while the real property of each of the Petitioners is assessed at more
than its full value, other properties situated in this taxing unit and
assessed upon its assessment rolls are assessed at a much lower percentage of
their full value, That such inequality exists not only in specific instances
but generally throughout Respondent Municipal Corporation. That the
assessments have been made at a higher proportionate valuation than the
assessed valuation of other real property in the same class on the same roll
by the same officers, specifying as the instances of such unequal assessment
all the real property in said class on the tax rolls in the assessing
jurisdiction. That Petitioners specify as instances in which inequality
exists, other real properties situated within said assessing unit and
assessed upon its assessment rolls, and that your Petitioners are and will be
injured thereby.
2
That if the assessing jurisdiction is an approved assessing unit as
defined by the RPTL, Article 19 of the RPTL and the applicable local laws
adopting the provisions of Article 19 violate the equal protection clauses of
the federal and state constitutions because they permit similarly situated
properties in different geographic areas wi thin the municipality where the
assessing jurisdiction is located to be taxed unequally and, therefore, they
are unconstitutional.
That the assessing jurisdiction's deliberate policy of reassessing only
those properties that have been recently transferred results in a denial of
Petitioner's right to equal protection under the United States and New York
State Constitutions.
That the assessing jurisdiction's method of selective reassessment and
its failure to reassess all real property on its assessment rolls is illegal
and unconstitutional and results in Petitioner bearing a disproportionate tax
burden.
EIGHTH: That Petitioner's property is unlawfully assessed in that:
(a) Petitioner's property and all real property in the assessing jurisdiction
are not assessed at a uniform percentage of value as required by RPTLSection
305(2); (b) in the event the assessed value has been increased over the final
assessed valuation for the previous tax year, respondents have failed to
comply with the provisions of the RPTL; (c) Petitioner's property is not
properly classified in that there are no valid and reasonable differences
between it and other property placed in other classes; (d) the assessment on
Petitioner's property has been made by a person or body without the authority
to make such assessment; (e) respondents have unlawfully employed a defective
valuation statute; and (f) the property is wholly exempt from taxation and
has been incorrectly set forth on the taxable assessment roll.
NINTH: That the general ratio of the assessed values to the full
values of real property situated in the Respondent Municipal Corporation is
such, that in order to be equal and proportionate with the assessments of
other real property, the assessments of Petitioner's real property should be
reduced as aforesaid.
TENTH: That the assessing jurisdiction exceeded the limitations
established by the Constitution of the State of New York, Article 8, Section
10, for the amount of revenues that could be raised through real estate
taxes. In addition, by discriminating between types of properties,
respondents have reduced the value of "taxable" real estate so that the tax
rate exceeds the constitutional limitations by reason of their having
effectively granted exemptions from taxation to certain premises; Petitioner
has, therefore, been compelled to pay more than the constitutionally
permissible tax rate.
ELEVENTH: That RPTL Section 720(3)
in that it improperly limits the scope
Petitioner.
is unlawful and unconstitutional
of evidence to be adduced by
TWELFTH: That the assessments were fixed in contravention of RPTL
Section 581 and, therefore, are unlawful, unequal and excessive.
THIRTEENTH: That if the assessment of the property herein was
3
increased, it was without adequate cause after a final order, administrative
determination or stipulation between parties determining the assessment
thereof for a previous year. That the amount of the assessment is grossly
discriminatory and that your Petitioners are and will be injured thereby.
FOURTEENTH: That thirty days have not elapsed since the filing of
the certified copy of the completed and verified assessment roll as required
by law.
WHEREFORE, your Petitioner(s) pray(s) that the Court review all and
singular, the proceedings, decisions and actions of the Assessor or Board of
Assessors, as the case may be, the Board of Assessment Review and Respondent
Municipal Corporation in the matter of the tax assessments and assessed
valuations of the real property of the Petitioner and that the said tax
assessments and assessed valuations be modified, corrected, vacated or
reduced, and be made equal to assessed valuations by class or generally on
the same rolls, as the case may require, that said assessments be adjudged
unlawful, null and void and that the Respondents refund to Petitioner all
unlawfully assessed taxes paid, and that the Petitioner have such other and
further relief including additional allowances pursuant to section 722 of the
Real Property Tax Law of the State of New York as may be just and proper in
the premises and that the Petitioner be awarded costs and disbursements of
this proceeding, together with reasonable expenses, including fees of experts
and attorneys.
Dated:
New York, New York
July 8, 2009
IMPERIAL GARDENS, LLC
Petitioner(s),
By:
COUNTY OF NEW YORK
)
)
)
55. :
STATE OF NEW YORK
Hubert J. Brandt, being duly sworn, deposes and says that he is the duly
authorized representative and attorney for the Petitioner above named, that
he has read the foregoing petition, knows the contents thereof, that the same
is true to his own knowledge, except as to those matters therein stated to be
alleged upon information and be ie nd as to those matters he believes the
same to be true.
Sworn to before me on this
~ day of ~ 2001.
vfn;-Ndfd t4M ~
Notary Pu ]!'
--------------
MichaeHe francois
No. 02FR61 04229
Qualified In Kings County
Commission Expires January 20, -PIJf :;;..-
4
AUTHORIZATION
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 authorizes HUBERT J. BRANDT,
RICHARD A. STEINBERG & WILLA I. LEWIS to act as our agent for the assessment year 2009
to:
(1) Make and serve a statement (also known as a complaint or protest), 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 judicial review of real property assessment, pursuant to
Article 7 of the Real Property Tax Law.
(3) BRANDT, STEINBERG & LEWIS LLP, 386 Park Avenue South, Suite 600, New York, NY
10016, are 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 there from:
This Authorization applies to the following petitioner:
PETITIONER:
Imperial Gardens, LLC
COUNTY:
MUNICIP ALITY:
DUTCHESS
TOWN OF WAPPINGER
See Attached Schedule of Properties
By:
/!,d.~z1J
.,;",
Edward Cohen
-
Title: Partner
Date:
cJ.3~ A;:J () I
COHENEDW
SCHEDULE OF PROPERTIES:
VILLAGE:
TAX MAP I.D.:
N/A
19-6158-20-751120-00
TAX YEAR:
ADDRESS OF PREMISES:
Imperial Boulevard
VILLAGE:
TAX MAP I.D.:
N/A
19-6158-19-722118-00
TAX YEAR:
ADDRESS OF PREMISES:
Imperial Boulevard
VILLAGE:
TAXMAPI.D.:
N/A
19-6158-19-689109-00
TAX YEAR:
ADDRESS OF PREMISES:
Imperial Boulevard
N/A
N/A
N/A
SCHEDULE "A"
IMPERIAL GARDENS. LLC
THE TOWN OF WAPPINGER
Tentative Requested Final
Assessed Correct Assessed Extent of
Va1uation(s) Va1uation(s) Va1uation(s) Over-Assessment
Property Description ($) ($) ($) ($)
006158 - 19 - 722-1I;?
IMPERIAL BOULEVARD
8,200,000 4,100,000 8,200,000 4,100,000
006158" / 9 - b S' 9 / 0 '1
IMPERIAL BOULEVARD
8,200,000 4,100,000 8,200,000 4,100,000
006158 -2,0 - 75"11 ~(,)
IMPERIAL BOULEVARD
200,000 100,000 200,000 100,000
5
SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK
COUNTY OF DUTCHESS
______________________________________________1
In the Matter of the Application of I INDEX NO.
I
IMPERIAL GARDENS, LLC I ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2009
1
I
Petitioner(s) I
I
-against- I
I
THE TOWN OF WAPPINGER, I
A MUNICIPAL CORPORATION, I
ITS ASSESSOR AND BOARD OF ASSESSMENT REVIEW, I
AND THE WAPPINGER CENTRAL SCHOOL DISTRICT I
Respondents, I
I
----------------------------------------------1
--------------------------------------------------------------------
PETITION AND NOTICE OF MOTION
--------------------------------------------------------------------
Brandt, Steinberg & Lewis LLP
Attorneys for Petitioner
Office & P.O. Address
386 Park Avenue South, Suite 600
New York, NY 10016
212-563-2200
5