Goldman v. Commissioner of Finance

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Goldman v. Commissioner of Finance

203 A.D.2d 20, 609 N.Y.S.2d 241

CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York

DecidedApril 5, 1994

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 203 A.D.2d 20 (Goldman v. Commissioner of Finance) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Goldman v. Commissioner of Finance, 203 A.D.2d 20, 609 N.Y.S.2d 241 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1994).

Pincite

Opinion

—Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Stanley Parness, J.), entered April 22, 1993, which, inter alia, granted the petition seeking [21]*21review of the tax assessments and reduced same accordingly, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

We agree with the IAS Court that the proper assessment on the tax lots in question should be determined by the income capitalization method contended for by petitioners’ expert. It is clear that the petitioners purchased the lots in question as speculation for future development which to date has not taken place. Accordingly, to assess taxes based solely on the purchase price would be improper and would not serve the legitimate goal of equitable distribution of the tax burden and would run counter to the statutory proscription that assessments be made according to the condition and ownership of the property as it presently exists (RPTL 302 [1]; see, Matter of Addis Co. v Srogi, 79 AD2d 856, lv denied 53 NY2d 603).

Therefore, Supreme Court properly rejected the view of respondents’ expert who relied exclusively on the sales price and alleged comparable sales and instead relied on the only other proof in the record which consisted of petitioners’ expert who offered the income capitalization method based upon the present income and use of the properties in question. We have considered respondents’ remaining contentions and find them to be without merit. Concur — Sullivan, J. P., Ross, Asch, Rubin and Tom, JJ.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

—Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Stanley Parness, J.), entered April 22, 1993, which, inter alia, granted the petition seeking [21]*21review of the tax assessments and reduced same accordingly, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

We agree with the IAS Court that the proper assessment on the tax lots in question should be determined by the income capitalization method contended for by petitioners’ expert. It is clear that the petitioners purchased the lots in question as speculation for future development which to date has not taken place. Accordingly, to assess taxes based solely on the purchase price would be improper and would not serve the legitimate goal of equitable distribution of the tax burden and would run counter to the statutory proscription that assessments be made according to the condition and ownership of the property as it presently exists (RPTL 302 [1]; see, Matter of Addis Co. v Srogi, 79 AD2d 856, lv denied 53 NY2d 603).

Therefore, Supreme Court properly rejected the view of respondents’ expert who relied exclusively on the sales price and alleged comparable sales and instead relied on the only other proof in the record which consisted of petitioners’ expert who offered the income capitalization method based upon the present income and use of the properties in question. We have considered respondents’ remaining contentions and find them to be without merit. Concur — Sullivan, J. P., Ross, Asch, Rubin and Tom, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

203 A.D.2d 20, 609 N.Y.S.2d 241, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/goldman-v-commissioner-of-finance-nyappdiv-1994.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack