Siefermann, Robert and Carol
~
RPTL 730
UCS 900 (RlW. Marcn 1999)
PETITION
SMALL CLAIMS ASSESSMENT REVIEW
IN COUNTIES OUTSIDE NEW YORK CITY
(01"18 petition per parcel)
...
~Al'(ll
GENERAL INFORMA nON
SUPREME COURT, COUNTY OF Dl.LreHESS
1. Flltng # 3Ot, 1 Calendar #
.
2 Assessing Unit 70 W /\J OF cD f+,o{:j IN 6- E~
3 Dale of final completion and filing of assessment roll 07/01/tJ.;t.
{a} Total 197, 000, ClO
Ib) Exempt amount '3t "19 CNTy/ II, 9/3 toWN
.
(c) Taxable assessed value (3a-3b) '&"'3, 3.;1..1 c Al'T'yjS'S; 081 /t?w' V
4 Date of filtng (or mailing) petition
.
5. Na me of owner or owners of property: RobEIe.( I'f~b C!1't1Lo / S ,(:;-re.lfl..nuf14hV
Post Office Address: 3 {!...~ovG";e D~/G PLA-~EIt<JI+/,/,;'A.lJ~r-PIJII~~A)YIM~
Telepnone#: ?~-~9?- 3Pl-~9
6. If applicable, name and address of representative of owner, If representatIVe is filing apphcation
~/A {Owner must complete Designation of Representative section.)
Telepl1one#:
7 Description of property as it appears on the assessment rol,.
Tax Map # 13S"6H Section "35? Bk>CK 0/ Lot O/6S~f
8 Location of property (street, road, hIghway number, and City, town or Village}
:3 e~ CI t/ e,.e Dill G P.J-I'f-C 5
aJl1~~ "A.-G-- ~/? F/f//"'; I IVY /,;J.S-9o a
;-'J
i
I
Iv
RECEIVED
JUL 03 2002
TOWN CLERK
,.j~::l.IJ
C"J
U1
......J
A
A II
C'..ROI JNn~ I=nR p~lTlnN
Assessment requested on the complaint form filed with the Board of Assessment Review
1. Total Dsessment I 'it s: 000, 00
2. Exemptamount,lfany ~,~~/7bf.l)..v/ ~90 CNT'IJ--
J. Taxable assessment '? fl;$ ~9 hU.LI A/ 1 7(." 9/(;) e NTj A P("ro X.
B.
CAlCULATrON Of eaUALIZED VALUe AND MAXIMUM REDUCTION IN ASSESSMENT
,. [v1 Property is NOT in a special assessing unit.
ASSeSSED VALUE .. eOUALlZATtON RATE
::
eaUAUZED VALUE
/& ~ S'/I'" 3.2-
9 "t CI t'I CI
, S-9' 9~
2.
{ ]
Property IS in a special assessing unit.
ASSESSEO VAlUE · CLASS ONE RATIO
=
eQUALiZED VALue
1tthe EQUALIZED VALUE exceedS 5150.000. enter the ASSESSED VALUE here!' r", 000,
3.
lv1
Multiply the ASSESSED VALUE by:
Enter th8l'iMUIt h.r.:~ ,;L4-"iz...s-O, 00
The resuli Is the maximum total auessment request reduction allowable.
C. I vf UNEQUAl ASSESSMENT: The total assessment i$ unequal becaus.e the property is assessed at a hIgher
percentage of full (maneet) value than (check one).
[ I (a) the average of all other property on the assessment roll. or
l t.1 (b) lt1e average 0' residential property on the assessment roiL
x25
Full (market) value of property~
S/5 ~ -? rr~,OO
Based on one 01' more of the following, petitiol'\8r believes this property should be assessed at 5' (p %
of full (market) value:
1. [--1 The latest State equalization rate for the 8SMsslng unit in which the property is located (enter
latest equalization rate: <~ 9 %). S4TIF /lrr""~HtrD ';:.I'h!'T s/1/6"irr ~AO""
14 S$E~.sOr-
2. [rf The latest residential assessment ratio fo4' the assessing unit in which the property is located
{enter residential assessment rat~: 5' ~ %). S,; E /I "TT.+<<H~ p FI9'~ TShlFGT
3. [ ] A sample of mai't(et value. of recent sales prk:es and assessments of comparable residential
propel'ti8S on which petiticJ.ner relies for objection (list parcelS on a separate sheet aM attach}.
4. [v1 statements of the assessor or other local official that property has been pi acec;l on th e r011 at
t. Te> 8f! %. See If TTR~)/€ (;1 ~ t!F7/eA!.. p~(J1+'f C-ot.L/IJ(!,f '-""'I'f'.(/
Petitioner believes tt1e total auaslment should be reduced to S 8" >/ oP~ ThlS amoul'l
may not be less th.an the total assessmMlt amount indicated in Section A (1). Of Section 8 r:3)
whichever is greater.
D I v( EXCES$IVEASSESSMENT:
1. (v( The total assesMd value exceeds the full (mancet) value of the property.
Total assessed value of property: S I" 'I., S'18', 3~
Complainant believes the total aSHlamenl should be reduced to a full value of $ ) S II 7? 6, ()~
Attactllist of p.arc.ela upon which complainant relies for objection. [f applicable.
This amount may not be less than the amount indicated in Section A (1). Or Sect'on B (3)
2. I 1 The taxable assessed value is excessive because of the denial of all or a portion of a part:al
exemption. Specify exemption {e.g., aged, clergy. veterans. eie).
Amount of exemption claimed: S . Amount granted, if any: $
This amount may not be greater trlan the amount indicat$d in A (2).
If application for exemption was filed, attach a copy of application to tt1ls petition.
E. INFORMATION TO SUPPORT THE FULL (MARKET) VALUE ClAlMEO
1. [ vr PurChase pnce of property $ /~~ I (JOO, 00
Date of purchase /9 f?" 'f
Relationship, if any, between sefJer and purchaser
/lIO/ll ~
2. [ ) 'f property has been recently offered to( sale:
When and for how long:
How o1fered~
Asking price: S
3. [ ] If prgpeny hu been recendy appraised:
When: By Whom:
Purpose of appraisal:
AppralMd value: $
4. r Yf If buDdings have been recenliy remodeled, coosttucted, or addltiornal improvements made. state:
Year remodeled, constructed. or additions made: OL <f Ft:1o r Rou...N'~ H8oVG@-A.o<<. IV () A:>o/
Date commenced: S- /.;1..0~1 Date completed: S"'/cOtoo I
Cost: $ ~-; '100.00
5. rvr AmountforwhichyourpropettyiainSUred: S 11./0,000,00
Name of insurance company and ~icy number. If/I ~ T~7C I' Ns "
e.o;~ClCJOqe:;CJ /EOICJf9..3
/
6. f 1 P'urcl'1ase price of comparable ptOpertyQe.) rec.ntly sold: $
PART 111
LISTING OF TAXING DISTR1CTS
Names of Taxlna Oistrtcta
1. COUNTY: 1:> tl.. Te He s ~
2. TOWN: (J..) Itp~I'1J 6-e~ Flflls
3. VILlAGE: IV I if-
4. SCHOOL DISTRICT to If-jJ"a/',V6-GJ(2. Sc..Ht?d / O/s TA-I'c..r
,'.
~
RPTl 730
PART IV
DESIGNATION OF REPRESENTATIVE OF FILE PETITION
. .' as petitioner (or officer thereot) hereby designate
to act as my represeotatlve In any and all proceedings before the Small Claims
Assessment Review of the Supreme Court in County tor purposes of reviewing the
assessment of my real property as It appears on the vear assessment roll of
(assessing unit)
I.
Slgnature of Owner
(Or officer thereof)
Date
PART V
. ELIGIBILITY AND CERTIFICATION
I certify that:
(a) The owner has previously filed a complaint required for administrative review of
assessments.
(b) The property Is Improved by a one, two or three family, owner-occupled residential structure
used exclusively for residential purposes. and is not a condominium; except a condominium
designated as Clasa 1 in Nassau County or as -homestead- Class in an approved
assessing unit.
(c) The requested assessment is not lower than the assessment requested on the complaint
filed with the assessor or the Board of Assessment Review.
(d) If the equalized value of the property exceeds $150.000. the requested assessment
f&duction does not exceed 25 percent of the assessed value.
(e) I have mailed. by certified mail, return receipt requested. or. delivered in person, withtn ten
days after the day of flUng this pelition with the County Clerk. one (1) copy of this petition to
the clerk of the assessing unit, or If there by no such clerk, then to the officer who performs
the customary duties of that official,
(f) I have mailed by regular mail within 10 (ten) days after the filing of the Petition with the
County CIer1< one (1) copy of the Petition to:
(a) The clerk of the school dlstrict(s)" within which the real property is located. or If
there be no cler1< or the name and address cannot be obtained, then to a trustee.
and
(b) The treasurer of the county in which the property is located.
I certify that all statements made on this application are true and correct to the best of my knowledge and
belief. and I understand that the making of any willful false statement of material fact herein will subject me
to the provisions of the Penal law relevant to the making and filing of false instruments.
,Mj/p. U~~.-~
. Signature of ef or representative
(-NOTE: Filing with the school district is not required in Buffalo, Rochester, Syracuse or Yonkers)
TOWN OF WAPPINGER
COUNCLMAN WAItD FOUR
JOSEPH P. PAClLONt
~ \NAPPI
O~~ 1-'....
~~ ,":"'.', "<!'
o . ~
I- ___'>-
~ r-\","~f""'" ~~
~~.:..
C.~ "'-
"r... ,'\'"
"55 CO'-'
SlJPiRYI8PIl ,',
"~fl'JGQIERO
, " .~. - '...,0,'"
OFFICE OF THE TOWN BOARD
20 MIDDLE8USH ROAD
WAPPINGERS FAllS, NY 1258000324
(845) 2874744
TOWN~';,i!";"';,;
VI~BETTINA
CHAIS'lI#PHeR J. COlSEY
JOSEPH P. PAOLONI
R08ERT L YAL.DAT1
Dear Siefennann Family:
,.~__.1vf~~ Qp'!"QDC;e a year grle,~e day. }! is a da~ set, aside fotcitizens tOexer~se their
rights to grieve their assessment. It is a three-step-process: -~','" "-~',
"""::~','-'
;1"'"
(1) 'Obtain and submitt the~})ijeation. Located. in the A.ssessor's de~t.
, (2) Appearing in front of the 'Grievance Board' on Wednesday.
(3) Follow-up with small claims<>>urt, if denied by 'Gri",ance Board'.
I am writiIl~t()you bee8U$e it ha$ COnte to myattentioll that despite the, bac1qtllt,t' ~sesments
priO[~iours tsomeas many as 10 years old);theprocessipg of your assessment WSSQloved
ahead of those and done out of order. As a result, your assessmen!};las been increased by
~~OO . This will~your annual total taxes (schoolandtowp.) by $88
this lack of orderly process is~ consti~s 'selective ~r; 'Additionally,
assesrnentshave .to be done witha~stant~bmark. They cannot use a
ben<:Jimark of market value in oneate@.and use aiillV'er8.ge of neighbofsvalues' in
anotber area. ~,state cal1$Jor bothJill~ly process and an equal and consistaJU
benchmark through sectioJ1J30S and l05Qf;tbe'Real Property Housinj Laws'. The
average Wappinger house is assessed atS6%ofits market value; but, for some reason
ward 4 is almost 85% of market value while other wards are as low as 11 %. All I ask
is fairness.
For 5 years, I have been fighting forfaimess int1rls d~t; howe"er, my lone
ypice is not enough. You need to oxceISice your right to grieve and notify the
supervisor in writing.
The above should be satistactory info~()n to getting positive l'C$ults in the small
claims co urt,step 3.
Cordially Yours,
~pi'P, p~
Joseph P. Paoloni
462.1815 ,Hm
(914)785-4829 Wk
joe.paoloni@Cibasc;com
~#t
http://ward4.cjb.l1et
5"
11
I!~ol' ·
t~
_ ___-....;....c<....~;)~
.:.. - ~f( -. -.
l~"-".'i .
...-,'
."<
"". ; -:J'~~'.-;-~--.....i.~.,,:.:_: ~ .....---~ ......-.!
,'-:t-;<'
v l,HWnt: 11 - UpmlOnS 01 L,OUnSt:l .::'ltlKY.::'lI'W. 1"t
t'age 1 011.
· Of~~:.,,?~...~~~~..~.~P:~,~~~~~.~.
Valuing & Astessing
Ral Property
I
"upayer RighlS
& Information
Tax l\illcy f'ODDS, Publlcatioos E(}ualization & Rdatr.d
& Exemptions & Procedures Tu Levy Distribution 5111:5
Qpinioll_S_ of Coug~~l
Volume 11: Opinions of Counsel SBRPS No. 14
Assessments, generally (selective reassessment)(improved parcels) - Real Property Tax law, 9305:
An assessor who reassesses only those parcels which have undergone improvement
may bear the burden of proving that he or she did not selectively reassess such
parcels, but rather, properly added the value of the improvement to the prior
assessment
We have been asked to reconsider that portion of 10 Op,Counsel SBRPS No, 60 in which we
expressed the opinion that an assessor may not selectively reassess only properties that have been
recently improved. An assessor has advised us that, in the absence of a statutory mandate to
reassess on a periodic basis,1 there are many years in which the only assessments he increases are
those of parcels to which improvements have been made, The assessor suggests that the relevant
judicial decisions, including those cited in 10 Op.Counsel SBRPS No. 60, indicate that we were in
error by opining that an assessor is acting contrary to law in selecting only recently improved parcels
. for reassessment Respectfully, we disagree and reaffirm our prior opinion,
It is true that the majority of the judicial decisions cited in 10 Op.Counsel SBRPS No. 60
concerned reassessment upon sale. Some, however, concerned new construction or improvements,
For instance, in Deleonardis v. Assessor of City of Mt. Vernon, 226 AD.2d 530, 641
N,Y.S.2d 83 (2d Dept, 1996), the court said, "[W]hile assessment upon improvement may be
permissible, the respondents have not, as in Nash v. Assessor of Town of Southampton, 168 AD.2d
102, 571 N.Y.S,2d 951, alleged that there is in place a comprehensive assessment plan under which
all properties will be reassessed, including those on which improvements have been made" (226
AD,2d at 532,641 NXS.2d at 85). The court then went on to hold:
Utilizing the recent purchase price as a basis for determining the increase in assessed
value of a property on which improvements have been made pursuant to building
permits, while similarly situated properties which have not been improved are not
subject to reassessment, results in a discriminatory treatment of the petitioner by
imposing upon him a tax burden not imposed upon owners of similarly situated
property [citation omitted]. Therefore, the petition is granted to the extent of vacating
the reassessment, and the matter is remitted to the respondents for a new assessment
taking into account only the value of the improvements to the property (226 AD.2d at
532-33,641 N.Y.S.2d at 85).
Still more recently, and subsequent to the issuance of our prior opinion, the same court again
revisited this issue in Stern v. Assessor of the City of Rye, 268 A.D.2d 482, 702 N.Y.S.2d 100 (2d
Dept, 2000), First, citing f'.Iasl:l, (~Yj)Ja), the court said, "reassessment upon improvement is not
illegal in and of itself' (268 A.D.2d at 483,702 N.Y.S.2d at 101), The court then found for the
taxpayers:
Here, the petitioners' properties were reassessed after recent improvements.
However, rather than adding the value of the improvements to the prior assessment
[citing Deleonardis], the properties were reassessed to a comparable market value
that included the value of the improvements [citing Nash). Since no comprehensive
assessment plan was in place to reassess the entire tax roll to reflect the comparable
http://www.orps.state.ny.us/search?NS-search-page=document&NS-rel-doc-name=/legal/opinions/v 11 11... 6/27/02
lle 11 - upllllOns or LOW1sel :stsKPS No. 14
m~et value of all appreciated properties, those properties with recent
improvements bore a discriminatory tax burden not imposed on similarly-
situated properties that had also appreciated, but which had no recent
improvements [citing DeLeonardis] (268 A.D.2d at 483,702 N.Y.S.2d at 102;
emphasis added).
Page 2 of2
The Stern decision is consistent with the conclusion expressed in 10 Op.Counsel SBRPS No.
60. While limiting reassessment to recently improved properties may withstand judicial scrutiny in
certain circumstances (~, adding the value of the improvement to the prior assessment), the
assessor who admittedly does so, will likely bear what the courts refer to as the "burden of going
forward" when confronted by an a taxpayer who claims that he or she has been selectively
reassessed. In Stock v. Baumgarten, the court said:
It is undisputed that there is a presumption of validity of an assessment by the taxing
authority and the burden reposes on the challengers to show by substantial evidence
that the assessments are excessive. This presumption of validity shifts the burden of
going forward and is overcome as soon as credible evidence to the contrary is
received sufficient to make out a prima facie case that the assessment is erroneous
[citations omitted](211 A.D.2d 1008, 1009, 621 N.Y.S.2d 754, 756 (3d Dept., 1995).~
In conclusion, reassessing only those parcels which have been improved during the past year
is not the preferred method for assessing all property at the statutory standard of uniform percentage
of value. Where an assessor does so, either by choice or due to lack of resources devoted to the
assessor's office, an allegation of selective reassessment should not be unexpected. To prevail in
court, the assessor may be called upon to bear the burden of proving that such changes are not
discriminatory.
July 23, 2001
1. The law does require that property be assessed at a uniform percentage of value (Real Property
Tax Law, 9305(2)), and, even in the absence of a statute requiring periodic reassessment, many
assessing units do so, some on an annual basis.
2. A recent lower court decision also addressed this issue in the context of a tax certiorari
proceeding (Blumberg v. Sherman, 185 Misc.2d 402,713 N.Y.S.2d 271 (Sup.Ct., Essex Co., 2000)).
Last Modified on: 06/27/200222:28:38
Privacy and Security Notice I Copyright I Contact Us
Questions/Comments: ny_~grps@orps.state. ny. us
(518) 486-5446
Copyrighl 2002 All Rights R.csencd.
Search text: opinions of counsel
Document 131 of 424
Title: Volume 11 - Opinions of Counsel SBRPS No. 14
Copyright @ 1997 Netscape Communications Corporation. All Rights Reserved.
http://www.orps.state.ny.us/search?NS-search-page=document&NS-rel-doc-narne=/legal/opinions/v 11 11... 6/27/02
---
, TO:
Town Board
FROM:
Joseph P. Paoloni
SUBJECT:
2002 Assessment Roll
I have questions in 3 general areas that I feel need clarification before I can in good conscience approve this year's
assessment role and I would like to share them with you in your evaluation of this process.
(1) - No comprehensive reassessment plan: Must use reassessment upon improvement!
I have recently come to understand that per the case Stern vs. the Assessor of the City of Rye, 268 A. D.2d 482,
702 N.Y.S.2d 100, that here, the petitioners' properties were reassessed after recent improvements. However,
rather than adding the value of the improvements to the prior assessment [citing DeLeonardis vs. Assessor of City of
Mt. Vernon, 226 A.D.2d 530, 641 N.Y.S.2d 83], the properties were reassessed to a comparable market value that
included the value of the improvements [citing Nash vs. Town of Southampton, 188 A.D. 2d 102, 571 NYS 2d 951].
Since no comprehensive assessment plan was in place to reassess the entire tax roll to reflect the comparable market
value of all appreciated properties, those properties with recent improvements bore a discriminatory tax burden not
imposed on similarly-situated properties that had also appreciated, but which had no recent improvements [citing
DeLeonardis] (268 A.D.2d at 483,702 N.Y.S.2d at 102; emphasis added).
According to Stern vs. the City of Rye, "It is well established that, in the absence of a comprehensive plan of
reassessment wherein all similarly situated properties are treated uniformly, a taxing authority may generally modify
the assessment with respect to a particular property only where there has been a physical alteration or improvement
to the property. (DeLeonardis v. Assessor of the City of Mount Vernon, 226 A.D.2d 530 (2d Dept. 1996); Nash v.
Assessor of the Town of Southampton, 168 A.D.2d 102 (2d Dept. 1991). In that instance (reassessment upon
improvement), the value of the improvements may be added to the prior assessment, but the assessor cannot
lawfully undertake a de novo review that reassesses the property to a percentage of market value. Stern v.
Assessor of the City of Rye, 268 A.D.2d 482 (2d Dept. 2000).
It appears that in a quick spot check of analyzing some of the properties that were reassessed this past season per the
May nod memo from the Assessor's Department, some properties were done using the fixed percentage of market
value method and others using the reassessment upon improvement method.
The following are properties that appear to have used the fixed percentage of market value method:
D Property with grid # 6259-04-564100 had an improvement reassessed whereby the $180,000 assessment
increased 53% or $95,000 to $275,000, approximately fixed percentage 59% of market value.
D Additionally, property with grid # 6259-04-572011 had an improvement reassessed whereby the $131,000
assessment increased 63% or $82,000 to $213,000, approximately fixed percentage 59% of market value.
D Furthermore, property with grid # 6259-04-565027 had an improvement reassessed whereby the $148,000
assessment increased 34% or $50,000 to $198,000, approximately fixed percentage 59% of market value.
D Again, property with grid # 6259-04-680200 had an improvement reassessed whereby the $247,000
assessment increased 25% or $61,000 to $308,000, approximately fixed percentage 59% of market value.
This appears to be not only inconsistent with statutory law, but also to other properties on the same tax role, which
appear significantly different. For example, property with grid # 6057-04-553316 had a similar improvement
reassessed whereby the $300,000 assessment increased 8% or $25,000 to $325, approximately 40% of market value
and appear to have been assessed using the reassessment upon improvement method.
Other examples below appear to have been assessed using the reassessment upon improvement method and showed
significant differences from the 4 examples above, which appeared to use the fixed percentage method:
D Property with grid # 6156-01-423651 had a reassessment whereby there was 'NO VALUE CHANGE' yet
valued at $208,000 and the assessment $90,000 or 43.3% of market value. Why was this done differently
than the 4 examples above?
D Property with grid # 6056-03-218470 had a reassessment whereby there was 'NO VALUE CHANGE' yet
valued at $189,900 and the assessment $93,000 or 46.5% of market value. Why was this done differently
than the 4 examples above?
Property with grid # 6 I 57-02-850869 had a reassessment whereby there was 'NO VALUE CHANGE' yet
valued at $225,000 and the assessment $1 10,000 or 48.9% of market value. Why were the 4 examples
above assessed differently than this one?
Property with grid # 6157-04-548470 had a reassessment whereby there was an increase of$10,000 yet
valued at $180,000 and the assessment $86,000 or 47.8% of market value. Why were the 4 examples
above assessed differently than this one?
Property with grid # 6258-04-573083 had a reassessment whereby there was an increase of $3,500 yet
valued at $227,000 and the assessment $1 10,000 or 48.5% of market value. Why were the 4 examples
above assessed differently than this one?
o Property with grid # 6157-04-972292 had a reassessment whereby there was an increase of$7,000 yet
valued at $3 14,900 and the assessment $ I 64,000 or 52. I % of market value. Why were the 4 examples
above assessed differently than this one?
Given the above incongruencies in process, how many others were done incorrectly and does this merit an internal
audit or a reprocessing of all units under one fair and consistent method?
( 2) - Selective Assessment!
Also, per the Opinions of Council Volume 11, SBRPS No. 14, "An assessor who reassesses only those parcels
which have undergone improvement may bear the burden o/proving that he or she did not selectively reassess
such parcels, but rather, properly added the value of the improvement to the prior assessment."
It is well known that there are many files outstanding with closed building permits NOT reassessed that allegedly
was the result of the prior assessor's unfinished work. There comes a time when a resident or current appointed
official must assume the responsibility of their predecessor, especially by the time of their second term. In my
opinion, the existence of a secondary 'pile' sets up an appearance of impropriety for 2 reasons. Firstly, due to the
inability to bear the burden of proving that he or she does not selectively assess by not having a chronological
process where it can clearly be pointed to why a reassessment rightfully occurred at its rightful point in time.
Whether the department has 3 or 10 people, the oldest MUST go first in reposing the burden from the assessor to the
challenger in showing that the assessment was NOT selective [citing SBRPS No. 14]. Secondly, in the absence of
status or a record of the contents of that 'pile'; how does the town bear the burden of proving that he or she did not
selectively reassess when the town cannot prove that no newer or more recent building permits were assimilated into
the previous assessor's 'pile'?
(3) - Grievance Board and Audit Process!
Furthermore, I would like clarification on how a commercial assessment grid#6258-03-278358 increases 58% from
$2.2 MM to $5.0 MM. Clarification should include how it was identified, how the final numbers were arrived at,
what method was used with dates and times of such meetings.
1 would like a detailed process outline of the grievance process including the security of application submitted for
grievance and audit trail Vis a Vis the tape recording of the actual grievance. In other words, how do we ensure that
the grievance process cannot be violated? Also, given the issues regarding the lawful process to use the
reassessment upon improvement method. Was the grievance board acting in concert with statutory law in
suggesting to grieving applicant to gather 'Market Value' data or appraisals of the entire value of the property
suggesting a reassessment to a comparable market value that included the value of the improvement [citing Nash].
Furthermore, I challenge the neutrality of the grievance board based on comments made during the taped meetings
that the board by default sides with the assessor. Additionally, I challenge the petitioning to at least one town board
member objecting to the informing of town residents on town issued letterhead.
Recommendation
I recommend that the entire process be audited. Additionally, I recommend that with the output of such audit we
reestablish the statutory process in writing for both valuation and orderly process. This process should be as
mechanical as possible to remove any potential subjective pressure placed on that department. A well defined
checks and balance process should be put in place to ensure with absolute certainty that the grievance and
assessment process cannot be violated. By virtue of doing this the Grievance board ensures that the well-defined
process has been followed and encourages the challenger to know his or her rights and the town policies of
assessment.
Joseph P. Paoloni
';'/ .
3 Cloverdale Place
Wappinger Falls, NY 12590-4503
June 4, 2002
Mr. Joseph Ruggiero
Town Supervisor
Town of Wappinger Falls
20 Middlebush Road
Wappinger Falls, NY 12590-0324
Dear Mr. Ruggiero:
I am writing in regard to the way that the Town assesses properties. Mr. Paoloni, my
Councilman, recently informed me that the reassessments by the Town of Wappinger are not
being done in a way that follows the 'Real Property Housing LaW. I am presently being assessed
in the amount of $94,500 for my 1,350 sq.ft. Raised-Ranch on a .63 acre parcel. The only thing I
did to my property was to install a new 24ft. above-ground pool which required a building permit.
It is my understanding that this flagged my property to be reassessed in the amount of $97,000.
From what I have read, this is an example of selective assessment, which is not legal unless
other criteria are being met. I do not feel these other criteria are being met in the Town of
Wappinger.
With this information I filed a grievance with the Grievance Committee on May 28, 2002. I
filled out the grievance application and went to my appointment with the Committee at 9:00 p.m. I
was told that just because I am filing this grievance I should expect to see some sort of reduction
in my assessed value. I was also told that the Committee has to believe the Assessors' office
until the Assessors' office is proven wrong and that I, the taxpayer, needed to bring in by the
following Friday at least 3 pieces of evidence (properties) that supports my position and claim on
my application. We talked about my house and they told me my house had a full-assessed value
of about $200,000 and made me feel like I should be happy that the assessment wasn't higher.
This seemed to me to be inappropriate since I thought they should be more impartial and not take
sides. They told me to talk to Mr. Paoloni about getting more information about where he got his
documentation from and present it along with the evidence I collected, on Friday May 31, 2002. I
spoke to Mr. Paoloni after the Town Board meeting on May 28, 2002. In talking to Mr. Paoloni,
who helped me a great deal, I was able to find the evidence (as they called it) to present to the
Assessor's office on Friday.
I was able to find 10 different properties in the short time that I had to look. I felt they
supported my position in one form or another. I took pictures of the properties and went to the
Assessor's office to get the correct information to go with that property. I gave them the graph's I
created to show why I targeted certain areas. I choose certain areas for their proximity to trains,
recreation, stores and homes that represented areas that I felt were similar to my own. In my
research, I found it appears so many taxpayers in the Town are not being taxed equally. It
appears to me that there is no standardization with regard to figuring out the individual tax
assessment for taxpayers and that the procedures in place are not working. I believe there are
many inequities between taxpayers and they are growing at an alarming rate. I also feel the
process in place causes undue hardship on the whole system. Every time a taxpayer has to get a
building permit for something like an above ground pool or a shed (both not permanent
structures) just so the Assessor can go and assess the property two things happen. First, it
overburdens the Building Department so they can't perform their primary tasks satisfactorily and
secondly, it overburdens the Assessor's office for roughly the same reasons, the Departments are
just playing catch up all the time and not able to focus on keeping things current and efficient.
This seems to be a very costly way of doing business. As I stated above, it appears to be
selective assessment and I think that shifts the burden of proof to the Assessor.
~.
Town of Wappinger
June 4, 2002
Page 2
Mr. Ruggiero, I am only a concerned taxpayer that wants equality under the law, and that
is why I am bringing this matter to your attention. I also believe you will be fair in regards to this
matter. You seem to be genuinely concerned for the Town when we talked during your campaign.
If you can help me resolve this matter it would be greatly appreciated. I would like you to let me
know what you find out if at all possible. I feel very strongly about this matter now that I know
what is happening throughout the Town in regards to assessments. Please feel free to call or
contact me anytime at 298-3289. I wish more politicians were like Mr. Paoloni for taking this
injustice to the Taxpayers of not only his Ward, but also the whole Town of Wappinger. I am sure
it took a lot of courage for him to do so.
Sincerely yours,
~~
Robert A. Siefermann
FACT SHEET
PHONE #
297-8275
LOCATION:
TOWN HALL, 20 MIDDLEBUSH
ROAD, WAPPINGER FALLS NY 12590
TUESDAY, MAY 28TH, 2002
GRIEVANCE DAY:
HOURS:
9AM - 12 PM
6PM . - 8 PM
ASSESSOR LINDA TASADFOY
EQUALIZATION RATE ~J
RESIDENTIAL ASSESSMENT RATIO (RAR) 56.67
Please submit 5 copies plus the orieinal of all documentation.
Return 5 business days prior to grievance day, by ( May 20th
2002) so we may set up an appointment for you.
,
~ ~ Allstate~
. You're in good hands,
EVIDENCE OF INSURANCE
Coverage afforded by the policy is provided by the Allstate Insurance
Company, Northbrook. Illinois
Number
: 000000013010893
Insured's name. mailing address and zip code:
ROBERT A & CAROL A SIEFERMANN
3 CLOVERDALE PLACE
WAPPINGERS FLS
NY 12590
Location of Premises (If different than shown above):
SAME
First Mortgagee. address and zip code:
TEG FEDERAL CREDIT UNION ITS S/A C/O CUC MTGE CORP
PO BOX 12670
ALBANY NY 12212
The POLICY PERIOD and
PREMIUM PERIOD will be
Annual and begin on
the date shown.
The POLICY PERIOD and
PREMIUM PERIOD will begin
at 12:01 a.m. Standard Time
on 11/13/2001 to 11/13/2002
Insurance is provided as follows:
POLICY TYPE - DELUXE PLUS HOMEOWNERS
Policy Limit of Liability
Section I Dwelling Protection $140000
Total Annual Policy Premium $350.00
Extended Replacement Cost on Dwelling
Personal Property Reimbursement
Deductibles
$500 to loss to the covered property from all insured perils.
Page 1 of More
R2853- 1
-
You're in good hands.
EVIDENCE OF INSURANCE
Number
: 000000013010893
PROVISIONS: This form is not the contract of insurance. The provisions of
the policy shall prevail in all respects.
All premiums for the insurance policy shall be computed in accordance with
Allstate's rules. forms. premiums and minimum premiums applicable to the
insurance afforded which are in effect at the inception of the insurance and
upon each anniversary thereof. including the date of interim changes.
It is understood that should the insurance protection evidenced herein
terminate for any reason. due notice will be given to the Insured. to the
mortgagee. and to all other interested parties in accordance with the standard
mortgagee clause.
A copy of the Policy Declarations reflecting the annual premium will be sent.
if required. to the mortgagee and to any other interested parties.
Authorized Agent: Nancy H. Schneider
exclusive agent
2591 South Ave Rt.9D
Agent Signature:
Wappi ngers Fl s
~~)297 -8803
~)298-0 1
NY
12590
Page 2 of 2
R2853- 1
SUBJECT
WAPPINGER
QUANTITY
CONDITION
PERCENT GOOD
REPLACEMENT COST
--TO DELETE IMPRVMNT
2 STRUCTURE CODE
NORMAL
IMPROVEMENT UPDATE DATE : 05/30/2002
6056-01-261793-0000 ROLL SEC TAXABLE
SITE PRP CLS 1 FAMILY RES OWNERSHIP
TOTAL RES SITES 1 LAND $31,000
TOTAL COM SITES 0 TOTAL $67,000
RESIDENTIAL SITE R01 =====================
RP1 MEASURE CODE SQUARE FEET 3
DIMENSION 1 96 DIM 2
GRADE AVERAGE
YEAR BUILT
FUNCTIONAL OBSOLESCENCE
RCN LESS DEPRECIATION
----TO DELETE IMPRVMNT BELOW, ENTER X
RG1 MEASURE CODE SQUARE FEET
DIMENSION 1 1200 DIM 2
GRADE AVERAGE
YEAR BUILT
FUNCTIONAL OBSOLESCENCE
RCN LESS DEPRECIATION
1
3
C
1997
MOuITORIS, ROBERT A
I 20 CIRCLE DR
=====================IMPROVEMENT FOR
1 STRUCTURE CODE PORCH, OPEN
(RCN)
ABOVE, ENTER X
GAR, 1. 0 ATT
3
QUANTITY
CONDITION
PERCENT GOOD
REPLACEMENT COST (RCN)
NORMAL
1
3
C
1994
=====================TOTAL IMPROVEMENT ITEMS 3 ==ENTER STRC CODE TO GO TO:
F1=CANCEL F4=GO TO SITE F6=GO TO BUILDING F10=UPDATE MENU
F2=ADD IMPRVMNTS F5=GO TO LAND F7=GO TO IMPRVMTS F13=UPDATE PRCL
F3=DEL IMPRVMNTS 40.40
.r f' ./ J -/ -/,I ;:;- 0 L D6--. D e,/17:
A e e 0 (< c " J...J 6- ~ C If A?. /IY 6/1 A- "V II....... /C>
TIIG'{ fI/f P .T~ CJ
/3(,1. ,'1&, 'p 6- jJ8~ m i 13
e L-o.s IE" D
ONE /.Iv' /999 FClA /Jl>J>/I-'fJAJ CJ-,4IITe/2!??;'ct-v.$
/9 9 t./ ro,*2. /? E */ft; pc:.-", If! ~ G
I e. /'f//Fo - /// 30~h? - ,,- ~ -O:L - ,R1'f;,vy 0 t.7TsiDc
..
SUBJECT
WAPPINGER
CABRE.RA, MI CHAEL
3" BROADWAY AVE
--------------------------
--------------------------
BUILDING STYLE OLD STYLE
NO. OF STORIES
EXTERIOR WALL ALUM/VINYL
YEAR BUILT
NO. KITCHENS
NO. BATHROOMS
NO. BEDROOMS
NO. FIREPLACES
HEAT TYPE HOT WTR/STM
FUEL TYPE OIL
RESIDENCE UPDATE DATE : 05/30/2002
5956-12-973615-0000 ROLL SEC TAXABLE
SITE PRP CLS 1 FAMILY RES OWNERSHIP
TOTAL RES SITES 1 LAND $24,000
TOTAL COM SITES 0 TOTAL $72,000
RESIDENCE FOR SITE R01 =============================
08 CENTRAL AIR YES 1 1ST STORY 1658
1.5 BASEMENT TYPE FULL 4 2ND STORY
03 BASMT.GARAGE CAPACITY 3RD STORY
1875 CONDITION FAIR 2 HLF STORY 1140
1 GRADE AVERAGE C 3QTR STORY
2.0 GRADE ADJUSTMENT FIN OVR GAR
3 PORCH TYPE FIN ATTIC
PORCH AREA FIN BASMT
3 ATTCH.GARAGE CAPACITY UNFIN HLF
4 PERCENT GOOD UNFIN 3QTR
FUNCTIONAL OBSOL. UNFIN ROOM
:--------------------:SQUARE FOOT
RCN LIVING AREA 2228
RCNLD FIN REC RM
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fl=CANCEL
F2=GO TO USER DATA
F3=DELETE RESIDENCE
F4=GO TO SITE
F5=GO TO LAND
F7=GO TO IMPRVMT
F10=UPDATE MENU
F13=UPDATE PRCL
40.30
~---.
";,.:..~............,
~'~.
, ,
. . . . ,,'.:....~t-JL,(;r
,." ..-
DATE: 05/30/2002
ROLL SEC TAXABLE
SUBJECT RESIDENTIAL SITE INQUIRY
135689 WAPPINGER 6057-04-773160-0000
,. PARCEL PCLS 210 1 FAMILY RES
r~EY, EUGENE TOT RES SITES 1 LAND $30,000
1 BIG ELM RD TOT COM SITES 0 TOTAL $81,500
================SALES===========RES SITE ROl ============RESIDENCE==============
BLDG. STYLE RANCH YEAR BUILT 1960
EXTWALL MAT ALUM/VINYL STORIES 1.0
GRADE AVERAGE ------AREAS-----
HEAT TYPE HOT AIR 1ST STORY 1784
NO. OF FIREPLACES 1 2ND STORY
NO. OF BATHROOMS 2.0 HLF STORY
NO. OF BEDROOMS 3 3QTR STRY
ATT. GAR. CAPACITY FIN BASMT
BAS. GAR. CAPACITY 1 TOTAL SFLA 1784
============ TOTAL LAND ITEMS 2 ==========
TYPE FRNT DPTH ACRES SQR FT
================SITE================
PROPERTY CLASS 1 FAMILY RES
ZONING R20
SEWER PRIVATE
WATER PRIVATE
UTILITIES ELECTRIC
NEIGHBORHOOD
==== TOTAL IMPROVEMENT ITEMS
TYPE SIZE1 SIZE2
5 PORCH, COVER 440
6 SHED, MACHIN 120
.7 PORCH, OPEN 80
42
7 ====
QUAN
1
1
1
----------------------------------- ------------------------ ------------------
----------------------------------- ------------------------ ------------------
F6=ASMNT INQUIRY F3 PREV ITEMS
F9=GO TO XREF F10=GO TO MENU
F1=MORE ITEMS
75.20 03-050
F2=SITE UPDATE
F4=NEXT RES SITE ON FILE
..~'>-'-'
.. .... _...... y
8$~~-
.~
,.,.r
..-
RESIDENTIAL SITE INQUIRY
6057-04-763179-0000
PARCEL PCLS 210 1 FAMILY RES
TOT RES SITES 1 LAND $27,500
TOT COM SITES 0 TOTAL $79,000
SITE R01 ============RESIDENCE==============
BLDG. STYLE RANCH YEAR BUILT 1957
EXTWALL MAT WOOD STORIES 1.0
GRADE AVERAGE ------AREAS-----
HEAT TYPE HOT AIR 1ST STORY 1068
NO. OF FIREPLACES 1 2ND STORY
NO. OF BATHROOMS 1.0 HLF STORY
NO. OF BEDROOMS 3 3QTR STRY
ATT. GAR. CAPACITY FIN BASMT
BAS. GAR. CAPACITY TOTAL SFLA 1068
============ TOTAL LAND ITEMS 2 ==========
TYPE FRNT DPTH ACRES SQR FT
1 PRIME SITE .46
2 RESIDUAL .03
SUBJECT
135689
~
WAPPINGER
MAY, CHARLES P.
3' BIG ELM RD
~~~=============SALES===========RES
================SITE================
PROPERTY CLASS 1 FAMILY RES
ZONING R20
SEWER PRIVATE
WATER PRIVATE
UTILITIES ELECTRIC
NEIGHBORHOOD
==== TOTAL IMPROVEMENT ITEMS
TYPE SIZE1 SIZE2
1 GAR,l.0 ATT 252
2 POOL,CONCRE 512
42
2 ====
QUAN
1
1
DATE: 05/30/2002 8)
ROLL SEC TAXABLE
----------------------------------- ------------------------ ------------------
----------------------------------- ------------------------ ------------------
F6=ASMNT INQUIRY F3 PREV ITEMS
F9=GO TO XREF F10=GO TO MENU
Fl=MORE ITEMS
75.20 03-050
F2=SITE UPDATE
F4=NEXT RES SITE ON FILE
.
CURF-~NT YEAR 02
135689 WAPPINGER
, HONIGSBERG, JOSEPH L
1& CIRCLE DR
6056-01-260771-0000
NYSRPS OWNER INFORMATION UPDATE
SCHOOL BEACON CITY SCHO
PRCLS 1 FAMILY R
TAX CODE HOMESTEAD
DATE :
(2/
05/30/2002
LAND SIZE
LAND
TOTAL
0.58 AC
28,500
69,500
========== OWNER INFORMATION
NAME-1 HONIGSBERG, JOSEPH L
-----
-----
================ MISCELLANEOUS ==============
STATUS A ROLL SECTION 1
ROLL SUB-SECT PRIOR ROLL SECTION 1
MORT NO ACCT NO 19260771
BANK H080006 COM CODE COM TERM
ESMT ALLOCATION FACTOR
ASR1 LIFE E N
CTY1 CTY2
AG DIS EDZ
IN REM SPLT T
FILE M 5780 LOT 1
=============AUDIT TRAIL INFO===============
CREATE DATE 00/00/00 LAST FM 04/16/02
LAST BATCH 349
NAME-2 & DENISE A
ADDR-1
ADDR-2
STREET 16 CIRCLE DR
CITY WAPP FLS NY
ZIP 12590 ZIP+4 0000
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
F1=CANCEL F3=DESC F5=EXEMPTIONS
F2=VALUE F4=SALES F6=SPEC DIST
71.00 03-050
F8=CLASS
F9=KEYCHANGE
F12=DONE/GO TO INVENTORY
F10=DONE/GO TO MENU
RESIDENTIAL SITE INQUIRY
6157-04-526258-0000
PARCEL PCLS 210 1 FAMILY RES
ROSE, JOHN W TOT RES SITES 1 LAND $28,000
7} CARD RD TOT COM SITES 0 TOTAL $105,000
=~==============SALES===========RES SITE R01 ============RESIDENCE==============
BLDG. STYLE RANCH YEAR BUILT 1956
EXTWALL MAT ALUM/VINYL STORIES 1.0
GRADE AVERAGE ------AREAS-----
HEAT TYPE HOT WTR/STM 1ST STORY 1928
NO. OF FIREPLACES 2ND STORY
NO. OF BATHROOMS 2.0 HLF STORY
NO. OF BEDROOMS 4 3QTR STRY
ATT. GAR. CAPACITY FIN BASMT
BAS. GAR. CAPACITY TOTAL SFLA 1928
============ TOTAL LAND ITEMS 2 ==========
TYPE FRNT DPTH ACRES SQR FT
1 PRIME SITE .34
2 RESIDUAL .23
SUBJECT
135689
WAPPINGER
================SITE================
PROPERTY CLASS 1 FAMILY RES
ZONING R20
SEWER PRIVATE
WATER PRIVATE
UTILITIES ELECTRIC
NEIGHBORHOOD
==== TOTAL IMPROVEMENT ITEMS
TYPE SIZE1 SIZE2
1 PORCH, OPEN 1248
2 SHED, MACHIN 144
3 PORCH, OPEN 112
4 POOL,ABV GR 573
37
4 ====
QUAN
1
1
1
1
DATE: 05/30/2002~
ROLL SEC TAXABLE
----------------------------------- ------------------------ ------------------
----------------------------------- ------------------------ ------------------
F6=ASMNT INQUIRY F3 PREV ITEMS
F9=GO TO XREF F10=GO TO MENU
F1=MORE ITEMS
75.20 03-050
F2=SITE UPDATE
F4=NEXT RES SITE ON FILE
*
. y.1~~:.':'"?,~.:...'
-... .,;~.
.....;.1;1;\....
P t.::'~\~.~ ,>>"t~ ~:'f I
i:.a,,":,j..l'~. J
~t:. Tj ,~
~A-~..:~.~}. ..:-_"
'.I '';j
, .-
~-~'-r:--'
..... .~
;till-
! , ' ~
.-
.,j
~ f . ~l'
? -,...
".
.1
CURRENT YEAR 02
135689 WAPPINGER
GARCIA, STANLEY
8 ..,CAMERON LN
6057-02-719564-0000
,
NYSRPS OWNER INFORMATION UPDATE
DATE :
05/30/200~
SCHOOL WAPPINGERS CEN S
PRCLS 1 FAMILY R
TAX CODE HOMESTEAD
LAND SIZE
LAND
TOTAL
0.45 AC
27,000
89,000
========== OWNER INFORMATION
NAME-l GARCIA, STANLEY
-----
-----
================ MISCELLANEOUS ==============
STATUS A ROLL SECTION 1
ROLL SUB-SECT PRIOR ROLL SECTION 1
MORT NO ACCT NO 19719564
BANK COM CODE COM TERM
ESMT ALLOCATION FACTOR
ASRl LIFE E N
CTY1 CTY2
AG DIS EDZ
IN REM SPLT T
FILE M LOT
=============AUDIT TRAIL INFO===============
CREATE DATE 00/00/00 LAST FM 04/16/02
LAST BATCH 340
NAME-2 & HIRO H.
ADDR-1
ADDR-2
STREET 8 CAMERON LANE
CITY WAPP FLS NY
'ZIP 12590 ZIP+4 0000
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
F1=CANCEL F3=DESC F5=EXEMPTIONS
F2=VALUE F4=SALES F6=SPEC DIST
71.00 03-050
F8=CLASS
F9=KEYCHANGE
F12=DONE/GO TO INVENTORY
F10=DONE/GO TO MENU
t
(,-'
CURkENT YEAR 02
135689 WAPPINGER
DARNOBID, BOHDAN
4 CAMERON LN
6057-02:734579-0000
NYSRPS OWNER INFORMATION UPDATE
SCHOOL WAPPINGERS CEN S
PRCLS 1 FAMILY R
TAX CODE HOMESTEAD
DATE :
05/30/2002~
LAND SIZE
LAND
TOTAL
0.41 AC
24,500
92,000
========== OWNER INFORMATION
NAME-1 DARNOBID, BOHDAN
-----
-----
================ MISCELLANEOUS ==============
STATUS A ROLL SECTION 1
ROLL SUB-SECT PRIOR ROLL SECTION 1
MORT NO ACCT NO 19734579
BANK COM CODE COM TERM
ESMT ALLOCATION FACTOR
ASR1 LIFE E N
CTY1 CTY2
AG DIS EDZ
IN REM SPLT T
FILE M LOT
=============AUDIT TRAIL INFO===============
CREATE DATE 00/00/00 LAST FM 04/16/02
LAST BATCH 349
NAME-2 & CHRISTINE ANN
ADDR-1
ADDR-2
STREET 4 CAMERON LANE
CITY WAPP FLS NY
.ZIP 12590 ZIP+4 0000
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
F1=CANCEL F3=DESC F5=EXEMPTIONS
F2=VALUE F4=SALES F6=SPEC DIST
71.00 03-050
F8=CLASS
F9=KEYCHANGE
F12=DONE/GO TO INVENTORY
F10=DONE/GO TO MENU
CURRENT YEAR 02
135689 '~APPINGER
LEGG, DOUGLAS
25 CHELSEA RD
6056-~1-059608-0000
NYSRPS OWNER INFORMATION UPDATE
DATE :
05/30/20020
SCHOOL BEACON CITY SCHO
PRCLS 3 FAMILY R
TAX CODE HOMESTEAD
LAND SIZE
LAND
TOTAL
3.70 AC
37,000
140,000
========== OWNER INFORMATION
NAME-1 LEGG, DOUGLAS
-----
-----
================ MISCELLANEOUS ==============
STATUS A ROLL SECTION 1
ROLL SUB-SECT PRIOR ROLL SECTION 1
MORT NO ACCT NO 19059608
BANK COM CODE COM TERM
ESMT ALLOCATION FACTOR
ASR1 LIFE E N
CTY1 CTY2
AG DIS EDZ
IN REM SPLT T
FILE M LOT
=============AUDIT TRAIL INFO===============
CREATE DATE 00/00/00 LAST FM 04/16/02
LAST BATCH 349
NAME-2
ADDR - 1
ADDR-2
STREET 25 CHELSEA RD
CITY CHELSEA NY
'ZIP 12512 ZIP+4 0024
==============================================================================
F1=CANCEL F3=DESC F5=EXEMPTIONS
F2=VALUE F4=SALES F6=SPEC DIST
71.00 03-050
F8=CLASS
F9=KEYCHANGE
F12=DONE/GO TO INVENTORY
F10=DONE/GO TO MENU
~
.."