SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK
`
`COUNTY OF Kings
`
`
`
`In the Matter of
`
`
` 590 PARKSIDE AVENUE H D F
`
`
`Borough of: Brooklyn
`
`Petitioner,
` Taxes of 2006 - 2007
`
`against
`
` THE TAX COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF NEW YORK AND THE
` COMMISSIONER OF FINANCE OF THE CITY OF NEW YORK,
`
`
`Respondents
`
`
`BLOCK
`
`5056
`
`LOT
`
`40
`
`ADDRESS
`
`590 Parkside Avenue
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`TO THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK:
`
`
` The Petitioner above named respectfully shows and alleges as follows:
`
`
` 1. At all times hereinafter mentioned, the petitioner was and still is Domestic Corporation and
`
`owner of certain real property in the City of New York, which real property is described in Schedule A
`
`hereto annexed and made part of hereof, by block and lot number and Borough by which the said real property
`
`was designated on the tax maps of the City of New York for the fiscal year July 1, 2006 to June 30, 2007.
`
`Page 1
`
`

`

` 2. During the time provided for by law, one of the assessors of the Real Property Assessment Bureau
`
`of the City of New York, an agency under the jurisdiction of the Commissioner of Finance, in accordance with
`
`law, did assess the said real property described in Schedule A and caused the assessed valuations to be entered
`
`in detail in the books kept in the office of said Real Property Assessment Bureau as shown in Schedule A.
`
` 3. Between January 15, 2006 and March 1, 2006, the time that said books were open for public
`
`inspection, or such further period as provided by law, petitioner, claiming to be aggrieved by said assessed
`
`valuation of said real property, duly made application in writing under oath to the Tax Commission of the City
`
`of New York, as provided by law to have such assessments corrected, said Tax Commission having been duly
`
`constituted by law, to review and correct all assessments of real property for taxation in the City of New York.
`
`In said application, petitioner claimed that the assessments were erroneous in that the assessments were
`
`excessive (by reason of overvaluation), misclassified, unequal (by reason of inequality), and unlawful(by reason
`
`of illegality) and demanded appropriate relief.
`
` 4. Thereafter, on or about May 25, 2006, the Tax Commission duly rendered a final determination on
`
`said application, and the assessments were confirmed as final in the amounts shown in Schedule A hereof.
`
` 5. Thereafter, the assessment rolls of the real property subject to taxation in the City of New York
`
`for the fiscal year July 1, 2006 to June 30, 2007 were prepared, certified and delivered to the City Council of
`
`the City of New York in accordance with law, which assessment rolls contained the said assessments upon
`
`petitioner's said real property as shown in Schedule A and the City Council proceeded thereon for the levying
`
`and collection of taxes.
`
` 6. The said assessments are excessive in that (a) the assessed valuation exceeds the full value of the
`
`real property. The sum for which the said real property would sell under ordinary circumstances on the statutory
`
`taxable status date is shown as the claimed value in Column "5" of Schedule A. The extent of over-valuation is
`
`the actual total assessment specified for each tax lot (Column "4"), less the claimed correct full value
`
`specified for each tax lot as set forth in Column "5" of Schedule A; (b) the taxable assessed value fails to
`
`comply with the limitations of increases in assessed value set forth in Real Property Tax Law Section 1805; (c)
`
`said real property failed to receive all or a portion of an exemption to which said real property or the owner
`
`thereof is entitled pursuant to the law authorizing the exemption; and (d) the assessments are excessive in that
`
`the property failed to receive a land only "progress assessment" as a building in the course of construction
`
`pursuant to Administrative Code Section 11-209.
`
`Page 2
`
`

`

` 7. Where the subject property is fully or partially exempt from taxation under RPTL Section 489 and the
`
`Administrative Code of the City of New York, Section 11-243, the assessment has been unlawfully increased in excess
`
`of the assessment of the previous existing dwelling appearing on the assessment rolls after the taxable status date
`
`immediately preceding the commencement of the alteration and improvements plus the value of the land and any
`
`improvements, other than those made under the provisions of RPTL Section 489 and Administrative Code Section 11-243.
`
` 8. The said assessments are erroneous by reason of inequality and are unequal in that they have been
`
`made at a higher proportionate valuation than the assessed valuations of (a) other real property on the assessment
`
`rolls of the City for the same year, and/or (b) other real property within the same class on the same roll by the
`
`same officer. The extent of such inequality and the extent to which said assessments are unequal is equal to the
`
`difference between the actual total assessed value as set forth in Schedule A and 15% of the amount specified as
`
`the claimed value for each unit set forth in Schedule A.
`
` 9. RPTL Section 720(3) is unlawful, improper and unconstitutional in that it improperly limits the
`
`scope of evidence to be adduced by petitioner.
`
` 10. The assessments are illegal and unlawful in that they were made contrary to law.
`
` 11. The assessments are illegal and unlawful in that the property should have been wholly exempt
`
`from taxation.
`
` 12. Where a notice increasing the assessments of the subject property was sent during or subsequent
`
`to the time the books of the annual record of assessed valuation remained open for public inspection, the notice
`
`purporting to increase the assessments is unlawful, improper, defective and void in that it fails to comply with
`
`New York City Charter Section 1512 and Administrative Code Section 11-211; Charter Section 1512 is unlawful,
`
`improper and unconstitutional in that it discriminates in favor of residential versus commercial property and
`
`fails to provide adequate notice of an increased assessment, and unconstitutionally vague in that it fails to
`
`adequately define what is meant by residential real estate.
`
` 13. At all times herein relevant, the Constitution of the State of New York, Article 8, Section 10,
`
`provides that real estate tax revenues of the City of New York in any fiscal year, exclusive of debt service
`
`requirements, shall not exceed 2-1/2% of the average full value of its taxable real estate for the latest five
`
`fiscal years. That 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.
`
`Page 3
`
`

`

` 14. Where petitioner's property is a cooperative or condominium, the assessment has been made contrary
`
`to RPTL Section 581 and/or RPL Sec. 339-y.
`
` 15. These assessments and all of the assessments on the assessment rolls of the City of New York are
`
`illegal and unlawful in that Section 305(2) of the Real Property Tax law requires that all real property in each
`
`assessing unit shall be assessed at a uniform percentage of value and that the assessments on said roll are not
`
`assessed at such uniform percentage.
`
` 16. Where the assessment of the subject parcel has been set based on 45% of gross sales price, the
`
`assessment is unlawful in that parcels whose assessment is based on 45% of gross sales price constitute an unlawful
`
`and separate class of real property which is not assessed at a uniform percentage of value required by RPTL Section
`
`305(2) and which class is not authorized by RPTL Section 1802 or the New York State and United States Constitutions.
`
` 17. The assessments are illegal and unlawful in that respondents have wrongfully denied a hearing to
`
`correct the assessment in question pursuant to Administrative Code, Section 11-208.1 that is
`
`unconstitutional, on its face and as applied herein.
`
` 18. Petitioner's property has been misclassified as being in class two, three or four instead of the
`
`appropriate class for petitioner's property; the class designation of petitioner's parcel results in an incorrect
`
`allocation of the parcel's assessed valuation between two or more classes; the criteria used by respondents for
`
`determination of tax class is arbitrary, capricious and unlawful.
`
` 19. The denial of the full and appropriate amount of exemption under RPTL Section 421-A or any applicable
`
`statute granting exemption to the subject property is arbitrary, capricious, contrary to law and makes the
`
`assessment unequal, unlawful and excessive.
`
` 20. By reason of the aforesaid excessive, unequal, erroneous, unlawful and illegal assessments,
`
`petitioner has been aggrieved and will be injured thereby, and will be compelled to pay more than its proper share
`
`of the taxes of the City of New York.
`
` 21. Reference herein to "petitioner" shall be deemed to include the petitioner named herein and all of
`
`said petitioner's predecessors in interest.
`
` 22. The property's transition assessments are excessive in that they have been (a) calculated in a manner
`
`inconsistent with the provisions of Real Property Tax Law, and/or (b) calculated in a manner inconsistent with the
`
`transitional assessment calculation for other properties in the City of New York.
`
` 23. No previous application has been made for the relief herein sought to this or any other Court or Judge.
`
`Page 4
`
`

`

`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
` WHEREFORE, your petitioner prays that the Supreme Court review and correct on the merits the aforementioned
`
`final determination of the Tax Commission on the grounds set forth in this petition, and that the Court take evidence
`
`to enable your petitioner to show the unjust, erroneous, illegal, unlawful, excessive and unequal assessments of said
`
`real property and its misclassification to the end that the said assessments may be reduced to the sum for which the
`
`said property would sell under ordinary circumstances for land and improvements, and to a valuation proportionate to
`
`the assessments of other real property assessed on the same rolls and/or other real property of the same class
`
`assessed on the same rolls, for the same year, so that equality of assessments will result, and that all properties
`
`shall be assessed at a uniform percentage so that said assessments will not be unequal, and that equality of
`
`assessments will result, and so that the assessments not be contrary to law, and so that any excessive transition
`
`assessments for current and subsequent tax years be reduced in accordance with law, and for such other and further
`
`relief as the Court may deem proper, together with costs.
`
`Page 5
`
`

`

`BOROUGH: Brooklyn
`
`PETITIONER: 590 PARKSIDE AVENUE H D F
`
`
`
`1
`
`
`
`Block
`
`Schedule A
`For the period commencing July 1, 2006 ending June 30, 2007
`
`2
`
`
`
`Lot
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`Assessment
`
`Assessment
`
`Claimed Value of
`
`Land
`
`Land&Improvements
`
`Land&Improvements
`
`5056
`
`40
`
`65700
`
`250200
`
`125100
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Dated, New York, N.Y. 2006
`
`
`
`Jeffrey Golkin, Esq.
`Attorney for Petitioner
`150 Broadway, Suite 701
`New York, New York 10038
`
`Petitioner
`590 PARKSIDE AVENUE H D F
`
`
`
`
`x_______________________________________
` Marc Kurs
`
`
`State of New York County of Kings
` Marc Kurs, being duly sworn deposes and says:
`That deponent is Assistant Secretary of the petitioner herein; that deponent has read and knows the contents
`of the foregoing petition; that the same is true of deponent's own knowledge, except as to matters stated therein to
`be alleged on information and belief, and as to those matters deponent believes it to be true.
` That the reason why this verification is made by deponent and not by petitioner is because
` petitioner is a domestic corporation and deponent is one of its officers, to wit its
` Assistant Secretary
`
`
`Sworn to before me this
` day of ______________, 2006
`
`
`x_______________________________________
` Marc Kurs
`
`NOTARY SIGNS x________________________________________
` Notary Public or Commissioner of Deeds
`
`Page 6
`
`