AIMCO Chelsea Rigde, LLC
~UPREME 'COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK
COUNTY OF DUTCHESS
. .
OC# 0006-0018
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ - - - - .- - - - - - - - - - - - X
In the Matter of
PETITION
Petitioner,
RECE'VED
JUL 2 1 2009
2009~
S7J }S-,
-,
_..~
o
~~~
.-;;.:::
C.-
i"
AIMCO CHELSEA RIDGE, LLC
Index No.
-against-
-.l
THE BOARD OF ASSESSORS AND/OR THE
ASSESSOR OF THE Town of WAPPINGER
AND THE BOARD OF ASSESSMENT REVIEW,
TO'NN ClER'"
.~
Respondents, :
_ _ _ _ _ __ __ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ __ _ _ _ _ _ ___ _ _ _ _ _ - - -- - - - -- - - - - -- ---X
w
_0
The petitioner above-named by his attorney, Herman, Katz Cangemi & Clyne, LLP
respectfully alleges as follows:
1. At all times herein mentioned, petitioner was and still is an aggrieved party with respect
to the assessment or assessments described below within the meaning of Section 706, Real
Property Tax Law, State of New York, and the Board of Assessors and/or Assessor is the
respondent herein (hereinafter referred to as 'the assessing jurisdiction').
2. The respondents have heretofore prepared, completed and perfected, purportedly according to
law, an assessment roll for the assessing jurisdiction, for the tax year 2010 (2009/10),
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:
COLUMN I COLUMN II COLUMN II I COLUMN IV COLUMN V
Town WAPPINGER
Village Original Claimed Confirmed Extent Unequal
S . D . {)l w uY'\ Valuation Valuation Valuation and/or Excessive
Dist. I 3 f ft?87
Sec. 6056 Land $ 1. 900 , 000 $ 190,000 * $ 1. 710,000
Blk. 01 Total $ 24,000,000 $ 2,400,000 * $ 21. 600,000
Lot 373534 UOVv
Dist. /3Srcj1
Sec. 6056 Land $ 2,000,000 $ 200,000 * $ 1. 800,000
Blk. 01 Total $ 28,000,000 $ 2,800,000 * $ 25,200,000
Lot 468615~3
Dist. I ~rb<f r
Sec. 6056 Land $ 150,500 $ 15,050 * $ 135.450
Blk. 02 Total $ 150,500 $ 15,050 * $ 135,450
Lot 506726 'ti)UD
Dist. ~ 3r(o~1
Sec. 056 Land $ 63,800 $ 6,380 * $ 57 .420
Blk. 02 Total $ 63,800 $ 6,380 * $ 57,420
Lot 540718 -{)6U0
*Same as Column II except as otherwise indicated.
Tax Year' 2009/10
0006-0018
Petitioner: AIMCO CHELSEA RIDGE. LLC
COLUMN I COLUMN II COLUMN III COLUMN IV COLUMN V
Town WAPPINGER
Village WAPPINGER Original Claimed Confirmed Extent Unequal
S.D. Valuation Valuation Valuation and/or Excessive
Dist. /6)& Y7
Sec. 6056 Land $ 17':)400 $ i7'i'fv * $
Blk. 02 Total $ 335.800 $ 33.580 * $ 302.220
Lot 558539-GkJu/
Dist. r ~')1i?1
Sec. 6056 Land $ 350.000 $ 35.000 * $ 315.000
Blk. 02 Total $ 14.000.000 $ 1. 400.000 * $ 12.600.000
Lot 590514.-wo{J
Dist. I ~)0bl
Sec. 6056 Land $ 475,400 $ 47,540 * $ 427,860
Blk. 02 Total $ 475,400 $ 47.540 * $ 427.860
Lot 590610 -Di)0J
Dist. i ?'i'1I81
Sec. 6056 Land $ 101.000 $ 10.100 * $ 90,900
Blk. 02 Total $ 101,000 $ 10.100 * $ 90.900
Lot 621570 ~[X)u ~
*Same as Column II except as otherwise indicated.
Tax Year 2009/10
0006-0018
Petitioner: AIMCO CHELSEA RIDGE. LLC
COLUMN I
Town WAPPINGER
Village WAPPINGER
S.D.
COLUMN II
COLUMN III
COLUMN IV
COLUMN V
Original
Valuation
Claimed
Valuation
Confirmed
Valuation
Extent Unequal
and/or Excessive
Dist.
Sec.
Blk.
Lot
/6)1161
6056
02
635539,DJoD
Land $ rou ()jc
Total $ 3.000.000
$
$
ru{ 6<??
300.000
*
*
$ tJ<J GJJ
$ 2.700:000
Dist.
Sec.
Blk.
Lot
Land $
Total $
$
$
*
*
$
$
Dist.
Sec.
Blk.
Lot
Land $
Total $
$
$
*
*
$
$
Dist.
Sec.
Blk.
Lot
Land $
Total $
$
$
*
*
$
$
*Same as Column II except as otherwise indicated
]. I'clitionu duly l\1ildc ,me! filed with respolldellts a wTittCll appliciltillll fwd :;liltcl1lcnt UIlc!Cll)iltll, to Il,lVC s:lid
0ssesscd valuation, lransitiol\ assessment nnd c\:cl11[1tion, if:\pplicnble, ofsnid le,ll properly cOITccled aile!
l'evisccI, speciCying thereill the lespd:t in which the assesSlllent cOlllplninecl of was incolrcct, and which
npplication and statement sought to reduce the assessment complained of as set fell,th in Colullln III Paragraph 2
GDove. The ilppliciltioll Gnd stiltement al'e hCI-eby rcfcITed to ,md made relrt hCt'cof as though fully set forth
herein.
4. Upon information and belief, a final decision and determinCltion on the application Clnd stCltemcnt were duly
rendered by respondents who failed to reduce the assessment as requested and confirmed or set the assessed
valuation of petitioner's property as set forih in Column N Paragraph 2 above.
5. Thirty days have not elapsed since the filing of the certified copy of the completed and verified assessment
roll with notice thereof, or law day, whichever is later, as pemitted by R.P.T.L. Sec. 702.
6. The assessment of petitioner's property is erroneous upon the following grounds: (a) Excessive, as fully
defined in R.P.T.L. Sec. 522, (to the extent set forth in Column V Paragraph 2 above); (b) Misclassification, the
class designation is incorrect, as fully defined in R.P.T.L. Sec. 522; (c) UneQ.lli.ll, as fully defined in R.P.T.L.
Sec.522, (to the extent set forth in Column V Paragraph 2 above). The assessed value is at a higher percentage of
value than the assessed value of other real property in the same class on the assessment roll and/or the assessed
value has been made at a higher proportionate value than the assessments of all other real property on the
assessment roll. The specified instances of such unequal assessment is the assessments of all the real property
(or where applicable, in the same class on the same roll) in the assessing jurisdiction and each and every parcel
thereof; and (d) Unlawful, in that this property and all real property in the assessing unit is not assessed at a
unifoffil percentage of value and that it is based upon an assessment practice of selective or spot reassessment
that has been declared illegal and unconstitutional by the Courts of the State of New York, as defined in R.P.T.L.,
and is unla,vful as more fully defined in its entirety in R.P.T.L. Sec. 522.
6a. Each claim as set forth in Paragraph 6 above is defined in R.P.T.L. Sec 522 and is incorporated herein as if
fully set forth.
7. In the event that the assessment at issue is or should be subject to a transition assessment and/or exempt or
partially exempt and has been incorrectly calculated, or not set forth at all on the taxable assessment roll, the
assessment should be reduced as it exceeds the statutory formula and/or is unlawful, unequal and excessive.
8. Petitioner is aggrieved and injured by said unequal, excessive, illegal, unlawful and/or misclassified
assessment (as defined in R.P.T.L. Sec 522), and will be required to pay a greater amount and proportion of taxes
than petitioner vlOuldbe required to pay if the assessment had been equal and not excessive, illegal, unlawful,
misclassified and erroneous.
9 . No provision is made by law for an appeal or other relief from the final detennination of the respondents
except by a review by petition to the Supreme Court. No previous application for the relief herein asked has been
made to any court or judge.
10. If there is more than one petitioner herein, the word "petitioner" shall mean "petitioners" or "each of the
petitioners" as the context requires. As used herein the singular shall include the plural and the plural shall
include the singular as the context requires.
11. Petitioner protests payment of said taxes based upon the within claims and upon the grounds that the tax rates
are calculated incorrectly.
12. [)etitioners arc !,elsolls asserting glOtlllelS l'Of' rc;vicw which plcst;nt CDIlllnOll qucsliollS oC law 01" I'<let witllill
the ll1eanlng of !<.Y. 1'[,. See 70()(2).
13. Respondents (lsseSSll1cnts were proll1ulgated con!I',HY to the rules (llld regulations ofResponcleills, C111cl Rre
therefore void, illegC11 anclunconstitutiona!
14. The assessment is illeg(ll in that it fails to comply with the requirements of R.P.T.L. Sec. 305(2).
15. The assessment is illegal in that it is not predicateclupon market value of the subject property ClS of the
appropriate taxable status and valuation dates.
16. The provisions ofR.P.T.L. Sec. 727(1), (2), (4) as applied to the assessments under challenge herein, are
illegal and unconstitutional, as violative of the Due Process and Equal Protection Clauses of the Federal and
New York State Constitutions, and conflict with the standard of assessing under R.P.T.L. 302, 305 and Chapter
VI oftne Nassau County Administrative Code, if applicable.
17. The provisions ofR.P.T.L. Sec. 739(1), (2), (3) as applied to the assessments under challenge herein, are
illegal and unconstitutional, as violative of the Due Process and Equal Protection Clauses of the Federal and
New York State Constitutions, and conflict with the standard of assessing under R.P.T.L. 302, 305 and Chapter
VI of the Nassau County Administrative Code, if applicable.
18. The provisions referenced in paragraphs 16 and 17 above, are vio lative of Article 16, Sections 1 and 2 of the
New York State Constitutions.
19. The assessment is unlawDJ1 and/or illegal as the Assessor and/or the Board of Assessors has included within
the assessment non-assessable and/or non real property items, thereby violating R.P.T.L. Section 300, and the
New York State Constitution.
WHEREFORE, petitioner prays that the Supreme Court review and correct on the merits the final determination
of respondents on the grounds set forth in this petition, and that the Court take evidence to enable petitioner to
show the unequal, excessive, unlawful, illegal, misclassified and erroneous assessment of the real property to the
end that the assessment may be reduced to the value thereof for land and improvements, and to a valuation
proportionate to the assessments of other real property, and/or other property in the same class, assessed on the
same rolls for the same year, so that equality of assessments will result, and may be properly classified, and for
such other and further relief as the Court may deem proper, together with the costs of disbursements of this
proceeding.
.surREMt COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK
COUNTY OF DUTCHESS
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ __ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ - - - - - - - - - - - - - - --X
In the Matter of
OC# 0006-0018
NOTICE AND PETITION
AIMCO CHELSEA RIDGE. LLC
Index No.
Petitioner.
-against-
THE BOARD OF ASSESSORS AND/OR THE
ASSESSOR OF THE Town of WAPPINGER
AND THE BOARD OF ASSESSMENT REVIEW,
Respondents. :
______ __ ____ _ __ _ _ _ _ _________ ____ ______ ---- -------X
Herman, Katz Cangemi & Clyne. LLP
400 Garden City Plaza. Suite 206
Garden City. NY 11530
516 741-1130
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 those as to matters of
public record) of said petition are within my personal know ge.
r-
Sworn to before me this day:
July 7 2DDU
'f 11 ~J3IJ
BORAH VERLOTTE
Notary Public State of New York
No. 01VE6065331
Qualified in Suffolk County
Commission Expires: October 15, 2009
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 Certiorari of this Court, to be held at the courthouse thereof. on
September 29. 2009 at 9:30 a.m.. or as soon thereafter as counsel can be heard. 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 1. 2009
Herman. Katz Cangemi & Clyne, LLP
400 Garden City Plaza. Suite 206
Garden City. NY 11530
516 741-1130
AUT H 0 R I Z A T ION
I, the undersigned, being an aggrieved person within the meaning of
the ~eal Property Tax La~, or an officer or partner of such aggrieved
person, as complainant, hereby designate and authorize the below named
law firm or any other attorney designated by said firm, to act as my
representative in any and all proceedings before the Board of Assessment
Review or the municipalities mentioned below for purposes of reviewing
the assessment of my real property as it appears on the assessment roll
of such municipalities for the proceedings applicable to the date set
forth below and to act as agent to verify, serve and file a petition
for review of said real property assessment pursuant to Section 706 or
730 of the Real Pro~erty Tax Law and this applies to property described
below as follows:
LAW FIRM:
HERMAN, KATZ CANGEMI & CLYNE, LLP
COUNTY:
DUTCHESS
TOWN:
WAPPINGER
CITY: (if applicable)
VILLAGE: (if applicable)
DESCRIPTION:
S.D.
Section: 6056 Block: 01 Lot: 373534
ROUTE 90
8.0.
Section: 6056 Block: 01 Lot: 468615
ROUTE 90
S.D.
Section: 6056 Block: 02 Lot: 506726
ROUTE 90
AIMCO
(Name
LLC
B
q
(8i ature) (Date)
~,~ \D. L~I\Je:
(Please Print Signature Above)
S (2., V~(~ ?fl~/o~r
Title (i.e., Owner, Partner or Officer)
January 2, 2009
Our File No. 0006-0018
OST
0100 PAT
AUT H 0 R I Z A T ION
I, the undersigned, being an aggrieved person within the meaning of
the Real Property Tax Law, or an officer or partner of such aggrieved
person, as complainant, hereby designate and authorize the below named
law firm or any other attorney designated by said firm, to act as my
representative in any and all proceedings before the Board of Assessment.
Review or the municipalities mentioned below for purposes of reviewing
the assessment of my real property as it appears on the assessment roll
of such municipalities for the proceedings applicable to the date set
forth below and to act as agent to verify, serve and file a petition
for review of said real property assessment pursuant to Section 706 or
730 of the Real Property Tax Law and this applies to property described
below as follows:
LAW FIRM:
HERMAN, KATZ CANGEMI & CLYNE, LLP
COUNTY:
DUTCHESS
TOWN:
WAPPINGER
CITY: (if applicable)
VILLAGE: (if applicable)
DESCRIPTION:
S.D.
Section: 6056 Block: 02 Lot: 540718
ROUTE 9D
S.D.
Section: 6056 Block: 02 Lot: 558539
ROUTE 9D
S.D.
Section: 6056 Block: 02 Lot: 590514
ROUTE 9D
AIMCO CHELSEA RIDGE, LLC
(Name of pi1/l:..o~er) A/\
. Bv.: ~~.. D1/01/0,
(Signature) (Date)
S Tt;.--P j.4.t ~ ~ . (..,~ r0 6
(Please Print Signature Above)
4. J, (~ ~et:--e>, O~ r
Title (i.e., Owner, Partner or Officer)
January 2, 2009
Our File No. 0006-0018
05T
8100 PAT
.
. .
AUT H 0 R I Z A T ION
I, the undersigned, being an aggrieved person within the meaning of
the Real Property Tax Law, or an officer or partner of such aggrieved
person, as complainant, hereby designate and authorize the below named
law firm or any other attorney designated by said firm, to act as my
representative in any and all proceedings before the Board of Assessment
Review or the municipalities mentioned below for purposes of reviewing
the assessment of my real property as it appears on the assessment roll
of such municipalities for the proceedings applicable to the date set
forth below and to act as agent to verify, serve and file a petition
for review of said real property assessment pursuant to Section 706 or
730 of the Real Property Tax Law and this applies to property described
below as follows:
LAW FIRM:
HERMAN, KATZ CANGEMI & CLYNE, LLP
COUNTY:
DUTCHESS
TOWN:
WAPPINGER
CITY: (if applicable)
VILLAGE: (if applicable)
DESCRIPTION:
S.D.
Section: 6056 Block: 02 Lot: 590610
ROUTE 9D
S.D.
Section: 6056 Block: 02 Lot: 621570
ROUTE 9D
S.D.
Section: 6056 Block: 02 Lot: 635539
ROUTE 9D
AIMCO
(Name
LLC
B
~~ b. L~e:
(Please Print Signature Above)
S {l~ v'~(~ ?fl~/o~r
Title (i.e., Owner, Partner or Officer)
January 2, 2009
Our Pile No. 0006-0018
05T
RIOO PAT