From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Matter of Am. Cyanamid v. Bd. of Assessors

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
May 1, 1995
215 A.D.2d 375 (N.Y. App. Div. 1995)

Opinion

May 1, 1995

Appeal from the Supreme Court, Rockland County (Palella, J.).


Ordered that the order is affirmed insofar as appealed from; and it is further,

Ordered that the order is reversed insofar as cross-appealed from, the branches of the petitioner's motion which are to (1) grant proper tax exemptions for the tax years 1991-1992, (2) correct the assessment rolls for the tax years 1991-1992, and (3) refund excess real property taxes paid for the tax years 1991-1992, are granted, and the matter is remitted to the Supreme Court, Rockland County, for an evidentiary hearing to determine the increase in assessed value assigned by the assessor as attributable to the construction of buildings 200, 205, and 211 on the petitioner's property; and it is further,

Ordered that the respondent-appellant is awarded one bill of costs.

RPTL 485-b provides that certain construction projects "shall be exempt from taxation, special ad valorem levies and service charges to the extent provided" on a sliding scale over a period of ten years (RPTL 485-b, [2]). The statute, in pertinent part, further provides: "Such exemption shall be granted only upon application * * * on a form prescribed by the state board * * * filed with the assessor * * * on or before the appropriate taxable status date * * * and within one year from the date of completion of such construction" (RPTL 485-b) and "A * * * town * * * and a school district * * * may, by resolution, reduce the per centum of exemption otherwise allowed pursuant to this section; provided, however, that a project in course of construction * * * prior in time to passage of any such * * * resolution shall not be subject to any such reduction so effected" (RPTL 485-b).

The statute also provides that "no such exemption shall be granted unless", inter alia, "such construction * * * is completed as may be evidenced by a certificate of occupancy or other appropriate document[s] as provided by the owner" (RPTL 485-b [b] [3]). There is unrefuted evidence in the record that prior to the date on which the Nanuet Union Free School District (hereinafter the School District) adopted a resolution eliminating the tax exemptions under RPTL 485-b, the petitioner had commenced construction on the three buildings in question, thereby establishing a "project in course of construction" in accordance with RPTL 485-b (7) (see, Matter of Black Riv. Ltd. Partnership v Astafan, 185 A.D.2d 687; cf., Matter of Parkway Assocs. v Board of Assessors, 202 A.D.2d 431, 432). Moreover, contrary to the School District's assertions, the petitioner's exemption applications all contain certificates of occupancy showing that the buildings were completed within one year of the exemption applications, thereby complying with the requirement of RPTL 485-b (2) (b) (3) (see, Matter of Pyramid Co. v Tibbets, 139 Misc.2d 132, 135, affd 152 A.D.2d 938, affd 76 N.Y.2d 148). We find, therefore, that the Supreme Court correctly concluded that the petitioner was entitled to the full benefit of the RPTL 485-b exemption for the tax years 1991-1992.

Based on that conclusion, we find that the trial court should have granted those branches of the petitioner's motion directing the Assessor of the Town of Orangetown (hereinafter the Assessor) to calculate the exemption, to correct the taxable assessment, and to refund the excess taxes paid for 1991-1992. Because the record demonstrates the petitioner's compliance with the criteria of RPTL 485-b, and since the exemption is computed on the basis of the increase in assessed value attributable to new construction (RPTL 485-b [a]), the Assessor need look no further than his or her own records to compute the exemption. Implementation of the exemption requires a mere mathematical calculation that, in most instances, can be made without a valuation trial or discovery (see, e.g., Matter of Pyramid Co. v Tibbets, 76 N.Y.2d 148, 154, supra). Thus, all that is necessary to implement the exemptions is an evidentiary hearing to determine the increase in assessed value assigned by the Assessor as attributable to the construction of the buildings in question. Thompson, J.P., Santucci, Altman and Florio, JJ., concur.


Summaries of

Matter of Am. Cyanamid v. Bd. of Assessors

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
May 1, 1995
215 A.D.2d 375 (N.Y. App. Div. 1995)
Case details for

Matter of Am. Cyanamid v. Bd. of Assessors

Case Details

Full title:In the Matter of AMERICAN CYANAMID CO., Respondent-Appellant, v. BOARD OF…

Court:Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department

Date published: May 1, 1995

Citations

215 A.D.2d 375 (N.Y. App. Div. 1995)
626 N.Y.S.2d 214

Citing Cases

In re Wyeth Holdings Corp.

ablish good cause for failing to mail copies of the petitions to Nanuet's superintendent of schools. Wyeth's…