You are here: / / Action Based Upon Misclassification of Property Must Be Brought Under Article...

Action Based Upon Misclassification of Property Must Be Brought Under Article 7 of the Real Property Tax Law

In determining that an action based on the allegation property had been misclassified must be brought under article 7 of the Real Property Tax Law (RPTL), the Second Department explained when a plenary action challenging property tax can and cannot be maintained:

In general, the proper method for challenging excessive or unlawful real property tax assessments is by the commencement of a tax certiorari proceeding pursuant to RPTL article 7 … . Such a proceeding, which must be commenced within 30 days after the filing of the final assessment roll, can challenge an assessment as being excessive, unequal, or unlawful, or as resulting from the property being misclassified (see RPTL 702[2]; 706[1]).

The procedures of RPTL article 7 need not be followed, and a plenary action may be commenced collaterally attacking the assessment where the challenge is that the taxing authority has exceeded its power, such as by effectively withdrawing a previously recognized exemption … . A collateral attack may also be mounted where the challenge is based upon “the method employed in the assessment involving several properties rather than the overvaluation or undervaluation of specific properties” … .

Here, all of the allegations regarding the assessment stem from the Board’s determination that the subject property should be classified as “Class two” property on the 2007/2008 tax roll … . As the Supreme Court properly pointed out, a challenge to this alleged misclassification had to be asserted in a proceeding pursuant to RPTL article 7 … . Tricarico v County of Nassau, 2014 NY Slip Op 05857, 2nd Dept 8-20-14

 

You might also like
DEFENDANT’S ATTORNEY’S AFFIRMATION STATING HE NEVER RECEIVED THE PLAINTIFF’S SUMMARY JUDGMENT MOTION WAS NOT REBUTTED BY PLAINTIFF; THE COURT NEVER HAD JURISDICTION OVER THE MOTION AND THE RESULTING JUDGMENT WAS A NULLITY (SECOND DEPT).
DEFENDANT DID NOT PRESENT A NONNEGLIGENT EXPLANATION FOR THE REAR-END COLLISION AND PLAINTIFF WAS ENTITLED TO SUMMARY JUDGMENT; DEFENDANT’S STATEMENT THAT HIS “BRAKES FAILED” WAS DEEMED SELF-SERVING AND INADMISSIBLE (SECOND DEPT).
THE COURT SHOULD NOT HAVE CONDITIONED ITS SANDOVAL RULING ON WHETHER DEFENSE COUNSEL CROSS-EXAMINES THE PEOPLE’S WITNESSES ABOUT THEIR CRIMINAL HISTORIES (SECOND DEPT).
Relation-Back Doctrine (Allowing Service of an Otherwise Time-Barred Amended Complaint) Explained
Knowledge that Water Will Be Tracked In Is Not Constructive Knowledge of a Dangerous Condition—Property Owner Is Not Required to Cover All of the Floor with Mats or Continuously Mop Up Tracked-In Rain
ALTHOUGH DEFENDANTS MISSED THE DEADLINE AND THEREBY WAIVED THE RIGHT TO MEDICAL EXAMINATIONS OF PLAINTIFF, THE MOTION TO STRIKE THE NOTE OF ISSUE AND COMPEL AN EXAM SHOUD HAVE BEEN GRANTED (SECOND DEPT).
Adverse Interest Exception to In Pari Delicto Defense May Apply—The Two Concepts Are Briefly Explained
PROOF OF DEFENDANTS’ DEFAULT WAS INADMISSIBLE HEARSAY BECAUSE THE UNDERLYING BUSINESS RECORDS WERE NOT SUBMITTED WITH THE SUMMARY JUDGMENT MOTION (SECOND DEPT).

Categories

Sign Up for the Mailing List to Be Notified When the Site Is Updated.

  • This field is for validation purposes and should be left unchanged.

Copyright © 2026 New York Appellate Digest, Inc.
Site by CurlyHost | Privacy Policy

Town Not Liable for Negligently Picking Up Personal Items from Driveway During... Criteria for Appointment of Temporary Receiver to Wind Up Dissolution of Partnership...