Matter of Bi-Costal Props., LLC v. Soliman

2025 NY Slip Op 00268

• Court: Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York
• Decided: January 16, 2025
• Docket: Index No. 809109/21 Appeal No. 3513 Case No. 2023-02305
• Status: Published

Opinion

Matter of Bi-Costal Props., LLC v Soliman (2025 NY Slip Op 00268)

Matter of Bi-Costal Props., LLC v Soliman

2025 NY Slip Op 00268

Decided on January 16, 2025

Appellate Division, First Department

Published by New York State Law Reporting Bureau pursuant to Judiciary Law § 431.

This opinion is uncorrected and subject to revision before publication in the Official Reports.

Decided and Entered: January 16, 2025
Before: Webber, J.P., Gesmer, Shulman, Pitt-Burke, Higgitt, JJ.

Index No. 809109/21 Appeal No. 3513 Case No. 2023-02305

[*1]In the Matter of Bi-Costal Properties, LLC, Petitioner-Respondent,

v

Sherif Soliman, etc., et al., Respondents-Appellants.

Muriel Goode-Trufant, Corporation Counsel, New York (John D'Baptist of counsel), for appellants.

Goldberg & Bokor, LLP, Cedarhurst (Scott Goldberg of counsel), for respondent.

Judgment, Supreme Court, Bronx County (Kenneth L. Thompson, J.), entered March 10, 2023, granting the petition to the extent of annulling respondents' March 5, 2021 determination which denied petitioner's clerical error review application, finding that petitioner was entitled to receive J-51 tax exemption benefits under Administrative Code of City of NY § 11-243 for its property beginning July 1, 2020, and denying respondents' cross-motion to dismiss the petition, unanimously reversed, on the law, without costs, the judgment vacated, the petition denied, respondents' cross-motion granted, and the proceeding brought pursuant to CPLR article 78 dismissed.

The court should have granted respondents' cross-motion to dismiss the petition. Petitioner's application challenging the alleged overassessment of its property, resulting from the failure to apply an increase in the physical value of the property and an exemption following certain window replacement work, was reviewable exclusively under RPTL article 7 (see Matter of 174th TIC Owner LLC v Niblack, 231 AD3d 401, 401 [1st Dept 2024]; Matter of Bajraktari Realty Corp. v Soliman, 223 AD3d 556, 556 [1st Dept 2024]). We reject petitioner's arguments that Department of Finance merely committed a clerical error which can be reviewed pursuant to CPLR article 78.

THIS CONSTITUTES THE DECISION AND ORDER OF THE SUPREME COURT, APPELLATE DIVISION, FIRST DEPARTMENT.

ENTERED: January 16, 2025