In the Matter of Mehran Manouel, et al., Appellants,v.Board of Assessors, et al., Respondents.

Brief

N.Y.January 15, 2015

To Be Argued By: CHRISTOPHER P. BYRNES Time Requested: 15 Minutes APL-2014-00035 Nassau County Clerk’s Index No. 5790/2011 Court of Appeals STATE OF NEW YORK In the Matter of MEHRAN & SEPIDEH MANOUEL, Petitioner-Appellant, —against— THE BOARD OF ASSESSORS and THE ASSESSMENT REVIEW COMMISSION OF THE COUNTY OF NASSAU, Respondents-Respondents. REPLY BRIEF FOR PETITIONER-APPELLANT d CHRISTOPHER P. BYRNES, ESQ. SCHRODER AND STROM, LLP 114 Old Country Road, Suite 218 Mineola, New York 11501 (516) 742-7430 Attorneys for Petitioner-Appellant July 9, 2014 i TABLE OF CONTENTS PAGE TABLE OF AUTHORITIES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ii ARGUMENT . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 SUMMARY. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 ii TABLE OF AUTHORITIES PAGE Cases Matter of Masters v. Board of Assessors, 188 A.D.2d 471 (App. Div. 2d 1992) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 Novak & Co. Inc v. Travelers Indemnity Co., 56 A.D.2d 418 (2d Dept. 1977) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 Town of New Castle v. Kaufmann, 72 N.Y.2d 684 (1988) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 Rules and Laws RPTL § 730 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1, 2 Other Authorities 7 Op. Counsel SBEA 80 (1982) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1, 2 9 Op. Counsel SBEA No. 94 (1992) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 McKinney’s Cons. Laws of N.Y., Book 1, Statutes §§ 35, 321 . . . . . . . . . . 1 Small Claims Assessment Review (“SCAR”) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1, 2, 3 ARGUMENT Respondents argue that the phrase “owner-occupied” should be strictly construed within the context of Small Claims Assessment Review ("SCAR”) jurisdiction, which would ultimately preclude the Manouels from filing a SCAR petition on the subject property. This argument is misplaced, inasmuch as the SCAR statute is remedial in nature, and specifically designed for liberal construction in favor of the residential property owner. See, Town of New Castle v. Kaufmann, 72 N.Y.2d 684 (1988); Matter of Masters v. Board of Assessors, 188 A.D.2d 471 (App. Div. 2d 1992); 7 Op. Counsel SBEA 80 (1982)(SCAR is remedial in nature and should be liberally construed in favor of potential beneficiaries); 9 Op. Counsel SBEA No. 94 (1992)(finding that a residence that was vacated after the taxable status date qualifies for SCAR); see generally, McKinney's Cons. Laws of N.Y., Book 1, Statutes §§ 35, 321. Thus, the term “owneroccupied” should be liberally construed to include occupancy by a family member, and the subject property should qualify for SCAR. Respondents note that RPTL § 730 (which establishes the jurisdictional prerequisites for SCAR) was amended in July 2012 to expand SCAR jurisdiction to include properties owned by Limited Liability Partnerships or Trusts. Respondents then argue that the Legislature intended this to be an “exclusive” list of 1 non-owner-occupied properties which qualify for SCAR, based on the rule of construction set forth in Novak & Co. Inc v. Travelers Indemnity Co., 56 A.D.2d 418 (2d Dept. 1977). Novak is completely irrelevant to SCAR jurisdiction. There, the Appellate Division was presented with determining whether a surety bond posted by a contractor intended to grant a third party the rights to sue on it. Novak, 56 A.D.2d 418, 423. At issue was the interpretation of a contract negotiated between private parties – not legislation. This decision has no precedential effect on the instant case, and offers no guidance on statutory construction in general. If anything, the recent amendments to RPTL § 730 are further evidence of the Legislature’s desire to expand, rather than restrict, SCAR jurisdiction. Respondents also imply that SCAR jurisdiction should be limited to homes which serve as the “primary residence” of the taxpayer. Such “primary residence” test has, however, been rejected outright by the Office of Real Property Tax Services (ORPTS), the New York State agency charged with administering and interpreting1 the Real Property Tax Law. See, 7 Op. Counsel SBEA No. 80 (1982)(finding that seasonal residences qualify for SCAR). Formerly the State Board of Equalization and Assessment. 1 2 SUMMARY For the foregoing reasons, the Order of the Appellate Division, Second Department, dated November 13, 2013, affirming the decision and order of the Supreme Court, Nassau County (Brandveen, J.) dated December 16, 2011 and entered December 20, 2011, which dismissed the instant Article 78 Petition, should be reversed. The Article 78 Petition should be remanded to the Trial Court with direction to vacate the Small Claims Assessment Review decision and remand the SCAR Petition to a new Hearing Officer for a de novo hearing on the merits. Dated: Mineola, New York July 9, 2014 Respectfully submitted, SCHRODER & STROM, LLP Counsel to Petitioners-Appellants MEHRAN & SEPIDEH MANOUEL By: _____________________________ Christopher P. Byrnes 114 Old Country Road, Suite 218 Mineola, New York, 11501 (516) 742-7430 3 /s/ Christopher P. Byrnes