FILED: QUEENS COUNTY CLERK 10/20/2017 10:36 AM
`NYSCEF DOC. NO. 1
`
`INDEX NO. 804860/2017
`
`RECEIVED NYSCEF: 10/20/2017
`
`SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK
`COUNTY OF Queens
`
`In the Matter of
`
`Dee & Dee of Liberty Avenue, LLC
`
` Petitioner,
` against
`THE TAX COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF NEW YORK AND THE
`COMMISSIONER OF FINANCE OF THE CITY OF NEW YORK,
`
`Respondents
`
`BLOCK
`9508
`
`LOT
`40
`
`ADDRESS
`104-21 Liberty Avenue
`
`Borough of: Queens
`
`Taxes of 2017 - 2018
`
`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 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, 2017 to June 30, 2018.
` 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, 2017 and March 1, 2017, 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
`
`Page 1 of 6
`
`

`

`FILED: QUEENS COUNTY CLERK 10/20/2017 10:36 AM
`NYSCEF DOC. NO. 1
`
`INDEX NO. 804860/2017
`
`RECEIVED NYSCEF: 10/20/2017
`
`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, 2017, 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, 2017 to June 30, 2018 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.
` 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
`
`Page 2 of 6
`
`

`

`FILED: QUEENS COUNTY CLERK 10/20/2017 10:36 AM
`NYSCEF DOC. NO. 1
`
`INDEX NO. 804860/2017
`
`RECEIVED NYSCEF: 10/20/2017
`
`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.
` 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.
`
`Page 3 of 6
`
`

`

`FILED: QUEENS COUNTY CLERK 10/20/2017 10:36 AM
`NYSCEF DOC. NO. 1
`
`INDEX NO. 804860/2017
`
`RECEIVED NYSCEF: 10/20/2017
`
` 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.
`
`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
`
`Page 4 of 6
`
`

`

`FILED: QUEENS COUNTY CLERK 10/20/2017 10:36 AM
`NYSCEF DOC. NO. 1
`
`INDEX NO. 804860/2017
`
`RECEIVED NYSCEF: 10/20/2017
`
`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 of 6
`
`

`

`FILED: QUEENS COUNTY CLERK 10/20/2017 10:36 AM
`NYSCEF DOC. NO. 1
`
`INDEX NO. 804860/2017
`
`RECEIVED NYSCEF: 10/20/2017
`
`BOROUGH : Queens
`
`PETITIONER : Dee & Dee of Liberty Avenue, LLC
`
`Schedule A
`For the period commencing July 1, 2017 ending June 30, 2018
`
`1
`Block
`9508
`
`2
`Lot
`
`40
`
`Dated, New York, N.Y. 2017
`
`Sherman & Gordon, P.C.
`
`494 Eighth Avenue, 23rd Floor
`New York, N.Y. 10001-2519
`
`3
`Assessment
`Land
`
`103950
`
`4
`Assessment
`Land&Improvements
`661950
`
`5
`Claimed Value of
`Land&Improvements
`500000
`
`Petitioner
`Dee & Dee of Liberty Avenue, LLC
`
`x
`
`Albert Dweck
`
`State of New York County of Queens
`Albert Dweck, being duly sworn deposes and says:
`That deponent is Member 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.
`
`Sworn to before me this
`day of
`
`, 2017
`
`x
`
`Albert Dweck
`
`NOTARY SIGNS x
`
`Notary Public or Commissioner of Deeds
`
`Page 6 of 6
`
`