You are here: / / PURCHASE PRICE OF GOLF COURSE NOT PROPER VALUATION FOR TAX PURPOSES, PURCHASE...

PURCHASE PRICE OF GOLF COURSE NOT PROPER VALUATION FOR TAX PURPOSES, PURCHASE PRICE REFLECTED POTENTIAL VALUE OF THE LAND AS DEVELOPED.

The Second Department, reversing (modifying) Supreme Court, determined the recent sales price of a golf course was not the proper benchmark for valuing the property for tax purposes. The $12,000,000 purchase price reflected the potential value of the land as developed:

“[T]he purchase price set in the course of an arm's length transaction of recent vintage, if not explained away as abnormal in any fashion, is evidence of the highest rank' to determine the true value of the property at that time” … . However, improved property must be assessed based on its current condition and use (see RPTL 302[1]…). “Property is assessed for tax purposes according to its condition on the taxable status date, without regard to future potentialities or possibilities and may not be assessed on the basis of some use contemplated in the future”… . Accordingly, in the context of a tax certiorari proceeding involving improved land, a recent sales price that was based upon speculation for future development, rather than continuation of the property's current use, is not a proper indicator of value (see RPTL 302[1]…).

Here, the evidence at trial established that the subject property was purchased for future residential development that had not yet occurred, and the sales price was based upon this residential development potential. Accordingly, the Supreme Court's adoption of the recent sales price as the valuation of the property for assessment purposes was in error … . Matter of Hampshire Recreation, LLC v Board of Assessors, 2016 NY Slip Op 01847, 2nd Dept 3-16-16

REAL PROPERTY TAX LAW (PURCHASE PRICE OF GOLF COURSE NOT PROPER VALUATION FOR TAX PURPOSES, PRICE REFLECTED POTENTIAL VALUE OF LAND AS DEVELOPED)/PROPERTY TAX ASSESSEMENT (PURCHASE PRICE OF GOLF COURSE NOT PROPER VALUATION FOR TAX PURPOSES, PRICE REFLECTED POTENTIAL VALUE OF LAND AS DEVELOPED)

You might also like
Video Recording of Independent Medical Exam (IME) Should Be Disclosed Prior to Trial; Court’s Permission to Record IME Is Required; Request for Another IME by a Different Doctor Should Have Been Granted
Deliberately-Caused Collision Was Not An Accident from the Standpoint of the Insurer of the Driver Who Caused the Collision—However the Collision Was an Accident from the Standpoint of the Insurer of the Victim of the Deliberate Act—Therefore the Uninsured Motorist Endorsement In the Victim’s Policy Kicked In
DEFENDANT’S DEATH PRIOR TO PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT DIVESTED THE COURT OF JURISDICTION, COURT SHOULD NOT HAVE DECIDED MOTION AND ORDER APPEALED FROM WAS A NULLITY.
THE PETITION STATED CAUSES OF ACTION FOR A VIOLATION OF REAL PROPERTY TAX LAW (RPTL) 305 AND VIOLATION OF EQUAL PROTECTION; THE PETITION ALLEGED LARGER HOMES WERE ASSESSED AT LESS THAN 100% OF MARKET VALUE AND SMALLER HOMES WERE ASSESSED AT 100% OF MARKET VALUE (SECOND DEPT). ​
THE CITY ISSUED TREE PIT PERMITS FOR THE SIDEWALK ABOVE A SUBWAY STATION; PLAINTIFF WAS INJURED IN THE SUBWAY STATION BELOW THE SIDEWALK WHEN A PIECE OF CONCRETE FELL; THE CITY DID NOT CLAIM IT DID NOT HAVE WRITTEN NOTICE OF THE SIDEWALK DEFECT; THERE WAS A QUESTION OF FACT WHETHER THE CITY CREATED THE DANGEROUS CONDITION (TREE PIT PERMITS) (SECOND DEPT).
IN THIS CHILD VICTIMS ACT LAWSUIT ALLEGING PLAINTIFF WAS ABUSED BY A SCHOOL JANITOR, THE SOCIAL SERVICES LAW 413 CAUSE OF ACTION SHOULD HAVE BEEN DISMISSED BECAUSE THE JANITOR WAS NOT “A PERSON LEGALLY RESPONSIBLE” FOR PLAINTIFF’S CARE; THEREFORE THE SCHOOL HAD NO DUTY TO REPORT THE ABUSE PURSUANT TO THE SOCIAL SERVICES LAW (SECOND DEPT).
THE USUAL STRICT CRITERIA FOR VACATING A DEFAULT ORDER ARE RELAXED IN CHILD CUSTODY PROCEEDINGS; MOTHER’S MOTION TO VACATE THE DEFAULT ORDER AWARDING CUSTODY TO FATHER SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED (SECOND DEPT).
APPELLANT PHYSICIAN’S ASSISTANT HAD LEFT DEFENDANT-PRACTICE AT THE TIME THE MEDICAL MALPRACTICE ACTION WAS BROUGHT AGAINST THE PRACTICE; THE PLAINTIFFS DID NOT DEMONSTRATE APPELLANT HAD TIMELY NOTICE OF THE SUIT; THEREFORE THE RELATION-BACK DOCTRINE DID NOT SUPPORT THE MOTION TO ADD THE APPELLANT AS A DEFENDANT AFTER THE STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS HAD RUN (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 © 2025 New York Appellate Digest, Inc.
Site by CurlyHost | Privacy Policy

RIGHT TO PARTITION IS NOT ABSOLUTE AND IS SUBJECT TO THE EQUITIES BETWEEN THE... LETTERS TESTAMENTARY PROPERLY REVOKED WITHOUT A HEARING.