You are here: / / Statutory Three-Year Moratorium on Seeking a Lower Tax Assessment Applies...

Statutory Three-Year Moratorium on Seeking a Lower Tax Assessment Applies to New Owner of the Property

The Second Department, in a full-fledged opinion by Justice Dillon, determined that the three-year moratorium on tax certiorari proceedings following a reduced assessment applied to a subsequent purchaser of the land. The seller of the land successfully won a reduced assessment of the land due to chemical contamination.  The purchaser of the land then sought a further reduction, based upon a much lower appraisal of the value of the land, within the three-year statutory moratorium period:

Central to this appeal is the language, purpose, and legislative intent of RPTL 727(1), which states, in relevant part, that

“where an assessment being reviewed pursuant to this article is found to be unlawful, unequal, excessive or misclassified by final court order or judgment, the assessed valuation so determined shall not be changed for such property for the next three succeeding assessment rolls prepared on the basis of the three taxable status dates next occurring on or after the taxable status date of the most recent assessment under review in the proceeding subject to such final order or judgment” (RPTL 727[1]). * * *

What distinguishes these matters from many tax certiorari proceedings is the change in the property’s ownership … . RPTL 727(2) sets forth certain circumstances under which property assessments may be challenged despite the three-year moratorium, mainly involving revaluations of all properties on a municipal entity’s assessment rolls, physical changes to the property, zoning changes, and other recognized exceptions not relevant here (see RPTL 727[2][a-I]…). These recognized exceptions address situations where changes in circumstances defeat the statute’s purpose of locking in judicially settled assessments to maintain the status quo, because the changed circumstances themselves upset the status quo … .

A change in a property’s ownership is not listed in the statute as an exception to the three-year moratorium of RPTL 727(1). Under the doctrine of expressio unius est exclusio alterius, the presence of exceptions in RPTL 727(2), without inclusion of a property sale exception among them, must be inferentially construed as the Legislature’s intent not to except from the three-year moratorium circumstances where property is sold to a new owner… . Matter of ELT Harriman, LLC v Assessor of Town of Woodbury, 2015 NY Slip Op 03356, 2nd Dept 4-22-15

 

You might also like
PLAINTIFF WAS STRUCK BY A BOARD FROM A DISMANTLED FENCE WHICH FELL OFF A FORKLIFT; DISMANTLING THE FENCE WAS A COVERED ACTIVITY AND THE ACCIDENT WAS THE RESULT OF A COVERED ELEVATION-RELATED HAZARD; SUMMARY JUDGMENT ON THE LABOR LAW 240(1) CAUSE ACTION PROPERLY GRANTED (SECOND DEPT).
CAUSES OF ACTION SEEKING TO ENFORCE A ZONING ORDINANCE AND COVENANTS IN ANOTHER’S DEED PROPERLY DISMISSED, CRITERIA EXPLAINED.
PLAINTIFF BANK IN THIS FORECLOSURE ACTION DID NOT DEMONSTRATE STRICT COMPLIANCE WITH THE NOTICE REQUIREMENTS OF RPAPL 1304, AS WELL AS THE NOTICE REQUIRMENTS SPELLED OUT IN THE MORTGAGE (SECOND DEPT).
DESIGNATING PETITION SHOULD HAVE BEEN INVALIDATED, OFFICE SOUGHT NOT SUFFICIENTLY DESCRIBED (SECOND DEPT).
Lawsuit Prohibited by Unambiguous Release
THE BANK IN THIS FORECLOSURE ACTION WAS NOT REQUIRED TO MEET THE 90-DAY-NOTICE REQUIREMENT OF RPAPL 1304 BECAUSE THE DEFENDANT HAD MOVED FROM THE RESIDENCE; HOWEVER THE BANK WAS STILL REQUIRED BY RPAPL 1304 TO PROVIDE NOTICE OF THE FORECLOSURE TO THE DEFENDANT; THE PROOF THAT NOTICE WAS MAILED WAS INSUFFICIENT (SECOND DEPT).
USE OF PLAINTIFF’S LAND WAS PERMISSIVE, NOT HOSTILE; EASEMENT BY PRESCRIPTION WAS NOT CREATED.
VIDEO SHOWED ELEVATOR DOORS OPERATED PROPERLY, PLAINTIFF ALLEGED INJURY FROM DOORS CLOSING ON HER, SUMMARY JUDGMENT GRANTED TO HOTEL AND ELEVATOR MAINTENANCE COMPANY (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

Hospital Employees, Working With a Non-Employee Attending Physician, Were Not... A Party Which Is Merely a Possible Beneficiary of a Charitable Trust Does Not...