You are here: / Real Property Tax Law

A CHALLENGE TO THE FINAL TAX ASSESSMENT OF REAL PROPERTY BROUGHT BEFORE THE COMPLETION AND FILING OF THE ASSESSMENT MUST BE DISMIISSED AS UNTIMELY (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, in a full-fledged opinion by Justice Duffy, disagreeing with the Third Department, determined that an action challenging a real property tax assessment cannot be brought before the completion and filing of the assessment. Here the action was brought before the filing of the assessment and was therefore properly dismissed as untimely:

The time period within which a proceeding challenging a final assessment of real property may be commenced is set forth in section 702(2) of the Real Property Tax Law. Section 702(2) provides, in relevant part, that a proceeding to review the assessment of real property:

“shall be commenced within thirty days after the final completion and filing of the assessment roll containing such assessment. For the purposes of this section[,] an assessment roll shall not be considered finally completed and filed until the last day set by law for the filing of such assessment roll or until notice thereof has been given as required by law, whichever is later” … . * * *

The provision requires a petitioner to commence a proceeding within the 30-day period between the finalization of the tax assessment roll and the expiration of that statute of limitation or face dismissal. * * *

Thus, the failure to timely commence a Real Property Tax Law article 7 proceeding is “a complete defense to the petition” which “must be dismissed” … . Matter of Coscia v Town of Greenburgh, 2023 NY Slip Op 05729, Second Dept 11-15-23

Practice Point: Here the challenge to the real property tax assessment was brought in September 2016 but the completion and filing of the assessment was not until November 2016. The challenge was properly dismissed as untimely.

 

, , , ,

THE DECLARATORY JUDGMENT ACTION ALLEGING THE COUNTY TAX MAP VERIFICATION FEES CONSTITUTED UNAUTHORIZED TAXES SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN DISMISSED (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing (modifying) Supreme Court, determined the plaintiffs’ declaratory judgment action should not have been dismissed. Plaintiffs alleged that certain fees (tax map verification fees) charged by the county’s Real Property Tax Service Agency constituted taxes which were not legislatively authorized:

… [T]he tax map verification fees were not expressly authorized by the State Legislature through the 2019 revisions to CPLR 8019 and 8021. A tax is exacted from a citizen to “defray the general costs of government unrelated to any particular benefit received by that citizen” … . “The State Constitution vests the taxing power in the state legislature and authorizes the legislature to delegate that power to local governments” ( … see NY Const, art XVI, § 1). “‘[T]he delegation of any part of [the] power [of taxation] to a subdivision of the State must be made in express terms,’ and the delegation of any form of taxation authority ‘cannot be inferred'” … .. “The legislature must describe with specificity the taxes authorized by any enabling statute. In turn, local governments can only levy and collect taxes within the expressed limitations of specific enabling legislation” … .

Here, while the revisions to CPLR 8019 and 8021 reference the County’s authority to collect tax map verification fees … , the revisions do not provide an express delegation of taxing authority, nor do they provide for a review mechanism, as is constitutionally required … . Cella v Suffolk County, 2023 NY Slip Op 05387, Second Dept 10-25-23

Practice Point: Fees imposed by a county which are not justified by the related expenses may constitute unauthorized taxes.

 

, , ,

THE REAL PROPERTY TAX LAW (RPTL), NOT THE CPLR, CONTROLS THE COMMENCEMENT OF A REAL PROPERTY TAX FORECLOSURE PROCEEDING (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined the city in this property tax foreclosure proceeding properly followed the procedure for commencing the action prescribed in the Real Property Tax Law (RPTL) (as opposed to the CPLR procedure):

Real Property Tax Law provides that a proceeding for the foreclosure of tax liens in rem shall be commenced in the manner provided in Real Property Tax Law article 11, title 3 (see id. § 1120). Title 3 sets forth specific requirements for public notice by publication and personal notice to owners and other persons with a right, title, or interest in affected properties (see id. §§ 1124, 1125). RPTL 1125(3)(c) provides that the service required by that section “shall be deemed to be equivalent to the service of a notice of petition pursuant to [CPLR 403]” … . Thus, the City was required to comply with the service requirements set forth in the Real Property Tax Law, rather than those set forth in the CPLR … . The City established that it satisfied the notice and service requirements set forth in the Real Property Tax Law and that it is entitled to a default judgment with respect to the parcels of real property identified in the City’s motion (see RPTL 1131, 1136[3]). Matter of Foreclosure of Tax Liens (City of Newburgh), 2023 NY Slip Op 04381, Second Dept 8-23-23

Practice Point: The procedure for commencing a real property tax foreclosure action is prescribed by the Real Property Tax Law (RPTL), not the CPLR.

 

,

​ALTHOUGH A PURPOSE OF THE WATERSHED CORPORATION WAS TO ENSURE CLEAN DRINKING WATER FOR NEW YORK CITY; OTHER PURPOSES INCLUDED FOSTERING DEVELOPMENT; THEREFORE THE UPSTATE PROPERTY OWNED BY THE CORPORATION WAS NOT ENTITLED TO A CHARITABLE OR PUBLIC USE TAX EXEMPTION PURSUANT TO REAL PROPERTY TAX LAW 420-A (THIRD DEPT).

The Third Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined the upstate property owned by the Catskill Watershed Corporation (petitioner) was not entitled to a charitable or public purpose exemption from the town’s property tax. Although a purpose of the corporation was to ensure clean drinking water for New York City, the fact that the purposes included economic development precluded the charitable or public purpose tax exemption pursuant to Real Property Tax Law (RPTL) 420-a:

… [P]etitioner’s certificate of incorporation expressly provides that it is formed for, among other things, “the exclusively charitable or public purposes of . . . aiding that part of the . . . [community in the Watershed] by attracting new commerce and industry to such area and by encouraging the development of, or retention of, commerce and industry in such area, and lessening the burdens of government and acting in the public interest.” These near-identical reasons were rejected by the Court of Appeals, which acknowledged that, even though a property may very well provide a laudable “public benefit,” where the overall use is “to further economic development and lessen the burdens of government, [such use] cannot be deemed ‘charitable’ within the meaning of section 420-a (1) (a)” … . Nor do we find convincing petitioner’s federal tax-exempt status, as “evidence of an organization’s section 501 (c) (3) status, by itself, does not create a presumption that the entity is entitled to a tax exemption under [RPTL 420-a]” — particularly given that the “IRS’s definition of what constitutes an exempt ‘charitable purpose’ is exceedingly broad” … . Matter of Catskill Watershed Corp. v Assessor of the Town of Middletown, 2023 NY Slip Op 03055, Third Dept 6-8-23

Practice Point: Even if a purpose of a corporation is to benefit the public (here the protection of drinking water), where other purposes are designed to foster development, the property owned by the corporation is not entitled to a charitable or public purpose exemption from property tax pursuant to RPTL 420-a.

 

, ,

THE CITY OF OGDENSBURG PROPERLY PASSED A LOCAL LAW REPEALING A PRIOR LOCAL LAW WHICH OPTED OUT OF THE RPTL ARTICLE 11 PROVISIONS FOR DELINQUENT REAL ESTATE TAX COLLECTION; THE COUNTY’S ARGUMENT THAT THE LOCAL LAW UNLAWFULLY SHIFTED THE BURDEN OF TAX COLLECTION TO THE COUNTY AND SCHOOL DISTRICT WAS REJECTED (CT APP).

The Court of Appeals, in a full-fledged opinion by Judge Cannataro, determined the Local Law which repealed a prior Local Law in which the City of Ogdensburg opted out of the application of RPTL Article 11 (regarding the collection of delinquent real estate taxes) was not unconstitutional. The county argued repeal of the local law unlawfully shifted the burden of delinquent tax collection to the county and the school district. That argument was rejected:

Inasmuch as the County has no powers with respect to taxation that are not “unambiguously delegated” to it by the legislature or the Constitution … and the legislature has chosen to limit a county’s ability to enter into RPTL 1150 (1) agreements by making such agreement permissive rather than mandatory, it cannot be said that the City impaired the County’s power by doing as the legislature permits it to do under RPTL article 11. Therefore, we conclude that Local Law No. 2 does not violate the statutory and constitutional protections at issue, but effectuates a power the legislature granted to cities wishing to revoke their initial opt-out from article 11. Matter of St. Lawrence County v City of Ogdensburg, 2023 NY Slip Op 02757, CtApp 5-23-23

Practice Point: A city can opt out of the RPTL Article 11 provisions re: delinquent real estate tax collection, and it can later opt back in. Here the county’s argument that the city’s opting back in unlawfully shifted the tax collection burden to the county and school district was rejected.

 

, , ,

ALTHOUGH THERE IS MERIT TO THE DEFENDANTS’ ARGUMENT THEY WERE DEPRIVED OF THEIR PROPERTY WITHOUT JUST COMPENSATION IN THESE TAX FORECLOSURE PROCEEDINGS WHERE THEIR PROPERTIES WERE TRANSFERRED TO NEIGHBORHOOD RESTORE UNDER NYC’S THIRD PARTY TRANSFER PROGRAM, THE DEFENDANTS’ FAILURE TO ANSWER IN THE TAX FORECLOSURE ACTIONS AND THEIR FAILURE TO REDEEM WITHIN FOUR MONTHS PRECLUDED ANY RECOVERY (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, in a full-fledged opinion by Justice Wooten, determined the tax foreclosures on defendants’ properties were valid and the transfer of the properties under New York City’s Third Party Transfer Program (TPT program) was proper. The court noted that, under the current procedure, property worth $2 million could be lost for nonpayment of a small water bill and the owner would receive no compensation. Here the city demonstrated it fulfilled the tax-foreclosure notification requirements and defendants did not answer and did not attempt to redeem the property within the four-month redemption period:

… [T]he defendants’ motions were time-barred due to their failure to move to vacate the judgment of foreclosure or to take any action to redeem the subject properties within the four-month redemption period … . In light of the presumption of regularity created by the entry of the judgment of foreclosure against the subject properties (see Administrative Code § 11-411), which became conclusive four months after the entry of the judgment …, there is no basis to consider the defendants’ contentions that the subject properties were not distressed … . Further, this Court has held that where, as here, the defendant property owners failed to interpose a timely answer or to redeem the property during the four-month period following the entry of the judgment of foreclosure, they are not entitled to “compensation” for any “surplus money as a result of the foreclosure and transfer of the property” under the TPT program … . Thus, while we emphasize that there is potential merit to the defendants’ contentions that they were deprived of their properties without just compensation, and that the transfer of a property which was not distressed under the TPT program was improper, we are constrained to conclude that those issues are not reviewable by this Court under the circumstances presented. Matter of Tax Foreclosure Action No. 53, 2023 NY Slip Op 02711, Second Dept 5-17-23

Practice Point: The court acknowledged that the city’s transfer of defendants’ properties to Neighborhood Restore under NYC’s Third Party Transfer program may have deprived defendants of just compensation for the taking of their properties, the fact that defendants did not answer in the tax foreclosure proceedings and did not attempt to redeem the properties within the four-month redemption period precluded any recovery.

 

THE COUNTY DID NOT SUBMIT SUFFICIENT PROOF OF COMPLIANCE WITH THE NOTICE REQUIREMENTS OF RPTL 1125 IN THIS PROPERTY TAX FORECLOSURE CASE (THIRD DEPT).

The Third Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined the county (petitioner) in this real property tax foreclosure case did not demonstrate the respondent received notice of the foreclosure as required by RPTL 1125 and a recent Court of Appeals ruling:

In James B. Nutter & Co. v County of Saratoga (__ NY3d ___, 2023 NY Slip Op 01469 [2023], revg 195 AD3d 1359 [3d Dept 2021]), the Court ruled that RPTL 1125 (1) (b) (i) contains no presumption of service and that “an interested party may create a factual issue as to whether the taxing authority has complied with the requirements of RPTL 1125 (1) (b) . . . despite the taxing authority’s submission of the ‘affidavit[s] of mailing’ mandated by [RPTL] 1125 (3) (a) and evidence that no mailings were returned” (id. at *3). Here, petitioner’s attorney avers in support of its motion for summary judgment that “affidavits documenting compliance with all RPTL requirements for this proceeding have been publicly filed with the [c]ounty [c]lerk as a part of the judgment roll therein; and, assuming without conceding, that any noticing defects as to [a]nswerants occurred, by service of an [a]nswer therein [a]nswerants concedes actual notice of the pendency of this proceeding and its applicability to the above said parcel, thereby as a matter of law obviating any such defects.” Although RPTL 1125 (1) (b) “contains no requirement of actual notice and evidence of the failure to receive notice is, by itself, insufficient to demonstrate noncompliance” (id.), this generic language failed to affirmatively establish compliance with the statutory mailing requirements as it failed to establish that the notice of foreclosure was mailed to respondent’s actual mailing address or the last address listed in petitioner’s records and that the records had been searched to verify that the mailings to respondent were not returned … . Matter of County of Albany (Johnson), 2023 NY Slip Op 02564, Third Dept 5-11-23

Practice Point: Here the county failed to prove strict compliance with the notice requirements of RPTL 1125 precluding summary judgment in this real property tax foreclosure case.

 

, , ,

IN THIS TAX FORECLOSURE PROCEEDING, THE COUNTY MUST PROVE IT COMPLIED WITH THE NOTICE REQUIREMENTS OF RPAPL 1125; EVEN THOUGH THE COUNTY PROVED IT MAILED THE NOTICE AND THE LETTERS WERE NOT RETURNED, PLAINTIFFS RAISED A QUESTION OF FACT ABOUT WHETHER THE COUNTY COMPLIED WITH RPAPL 1125 BY OTHER PROOF INDICATING NOTICE WAS NOT RECEIVED (THIRD DEPT).

The Third Department, reversing its prior decision after a reversal by the Court of Appeals, over a two-justice dissent, determined that the plaintiff had raised questions of fact about whether it was notified of the tax foreclosure proceeding by defendant county. The Court of Appeals had ruled that, although the county proved the notice was mailed the letters were not returned, plaintiffs could prove the notice was not received by other evidence:

… “[A]lthough the statute contains no requirement of actual notice and evidence of the failure to receive notice is,by itself, insufficient to demonstrate noncompliance, an interested party may create a factual issue as to whether the taxing authority has complied with the requirements of RPTL 1125 (1) (b) by other relevant proof, despite the taxing authority’s submission of the ‘affidavit[s] of mailing’ mandated by section 1125 (3) (a) and evidence that no mailings were returned” … . …

Although we are aware that, on its own, failure to receive notice is insufficient to defeat summary judgment … , such failure, when combined with other evidence, can support a reasonable inference that defendants failed to comply with the mailing requirements of RPTL 1125 (1) (b) (i). … [I]f the notices were not received, there are only two real possibilities — either the procedure used by defendant County … failed to comply with RPTL 1125 (1) (b) (i) inasmuch as the wrong address was affixed, or the United States Postal Service made an error. When viewed in conjunction with the further facts that the certified mail tracking history indicated an unknown address and that the return receipt was unstamped, it is reasonable to infer, together with the additional evidence of nonreceipt, that the notices were not correctly mailed and that the County failed to comply with the requirements of RPTL 1125 (1) (b) (i). James B. Nutter & Co. v County of Saratoga, 2023 NY Slip Op 02148, Third Dept 4-27-23

Practice Point: In this tax foreclosure proceeding, the county submitted prima facie proof it complied with the notice requirements of RPAPL 1125 by submitting proof the letters were mailed and not returned. However, the plaintiffs submitted evidence that the notice was not received, which raised a question of fact about whether the county in fact complied with RPAPL 1125.

 

,

IN A TAX FORECLOSURE PROCEEDING, EVIDENCE THE LETTERS PROVIDING NOTICE OF THE FORECLOSURE WERE NOT RETURNED TO THE TAXING AUTHORITY DOES NOT PRECLUDE RAISING A QUESTION OF FACT WITH PROOF NOTICE WAS NOT RECEIVED (CT APP). ​

The Court of Appeals, reversing the Appellate Division, in a full-fledged opinion by Judge Cannataro, determined the controlling statute, Real Property Tax Law (RPTL) 1125(1)(b), does not preclude plaintiff in a tax foreclosure proceeding from presenting evidence the statutory notice requirements were not complied with. The statute states that notice of the foreclosure “shall be deemed received” if neither the certified letter nor the letter sent by first class mail are returned within 45 days. The taxing authority presented evidence the letters were not returned. Plaintiff presented evidence notice was sent to the wrong address and the certified letter lacked a postmark. The Court of Appeals held plaintiff had raised a question of fact about compliance with the statutory notice requirement, notwithstanding the evidence the letters were not returned:

By its unambiguous terms, RPTL 1125 (1) (b) (i) relates to whether notice will be “deemed received,” not whether the taxing authority has complied with the statutory mailing requirements. Although the taxing authority must ensure that “[a]n affidavit of mailing of such notice [is] executed” … , the statute expressly provides that “[t]he failure of an intended recipient to receive any such notice shall not invalidate any tax or prevent the enforcement of the same as provided by law” … . It is only when both the certified mailing and the first class mailing are returned that the statute requires the taxing authority to take additional action beyond the requirements set forth in RPTL 1125 (1) (b) (i) … .

That is not the end of the analysis, however, in cases where the interested party argues, as plaintiff does here, that the taxing authority failed to comply with the mailing requirements set forth in RPTL 1125 (1) (b) (i). … RPTL 1125 (1) (b) (i) contains no “presumption of service” … . Nor does section 1125 (1) (b) (i) bar an interested party from submitting evidence that would call the taxing authority’s compliance with its requirements into issue or limit the proof an interested party may use to raise an issue of fact with respect to that compliance only to evidence that both the certified and first class mailings were returned. Courts “may not create a limitation that the legislature did not enact” … . James B. Nutter & Co. v County of Saratoga, 2023 NY Slip Op 01469, CtApp 3-21-23

Practice Point: In a tax foreclosure proceeding, proof that the letters notifying the property owner of the foreclosure were not returned to the taxing authority (RPTL 1125(1)(b)) does not preclude the owner from raising a question of fact with evidence notice was not received (here evidence the certified letter did not have a postmark and a letter was sent to the wrong address).

 

,

THE COUNTY HAD IN REM JURISDICTION IN THIS TAX FORECLOSURE PROCEEDING AND MADE ADEQUATE ATTEMPTS TO NOTIFY THE NECESSARY PARTIES (CT APP).

The Court of Appeals, in a full-fledged opinion by Judge Rivera, affirming the appellate division, determined the county had in rem jurisdiction in this tax foreclosure proceeding and the county’s attempts to notify all parties of the tax foreclosure proceedings were sufficient:

Two fundamental legal principles govern our decision in this appeal. First, a tax foreclosure proceeding is in rem against the “res”—the taxable real property—and not an action in personam commenced against an individual to establish personal liability. Second, New York statutory law and state and federal constitutional guarantees of due process require that the petitioner in a foreclosure proceeding must attempt notice that is reasonably calculated to alert all parties with an interest in the property.

Here, defendants commenced an in rem tax foreclosure proceeding and mailed the statutorily-required notice to the publicly-listed owners of the property, posted and filed the notice, and publicized the notice in the press. Upon learning that a person listed as an owner died before the notices were issued, defendant County Treasurer also personally contacted the sole business located on the property in an effort to identify and personally inform a manager, owner, or any person in charge of the pending foreclosure proceeding. Under these circumstances, defendants provided legally adequate notice of a validly commenced tax foreclosure action. Hetelekides v County of Ontario, 2023 NY Slip Op 00803, CtApp 2-14-23

Practice Point: A tax foreclosure proceeding is an in rem proceeding against the taxable real property, not an in personam action against an individual.

 

Categories

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

Copyright © 2023 New York Appellate Digest, LLC
Site by CurlyHost | Privacy Policy