Matter of Ralph Prop. LLC v. Niblack

2024 NY Slip Op 31994(U)

• Court: New York Supreme Court, Kings County
• Decided: June 10, 2024
• Status: Unpublished

Opinion

Matter of Ralph Prop. LLC v Niblack 2024 NY Slip Op 31994(U) June 10, 2024 Supreme Court, Kings County Docket Number: Index No. 532209/23 Judge: Anne J. Swern Cases posted with a "30000" identifier, i.e., 2013 NY Slip Op 30001(U), are republished from various New York State and local government sources, including the New York State Unified Court System's eCourts Service. This opinion is uncorrected and not selected for official publication. FILED: KINGS COUNTY CLERK 06/10/2024 12:38 PM INDEX NO. 532209/2023 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 36 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 06/10/2024

At an IAS Term, Part 75 of the Supreme Court of the State of New York, held in and for the County of Kings, at the Courthouse, at 360 Adams Street, Brooklyn, New York, on the _10th_ day of June, 2024. PRESENT:

HON. ANNE J: SWERN, Justice. ----------------------------------------------------------------X In the Matter of the Application of

RALPH PROPERTY LLC, Petitioner,

For a Judgment under Article 78 of the Civil Practice Law and Rules DECISION AND JUDGMENT

- against - Index No. 532209/23

PRESTON NIBLACK, in his capacity as Mot. Seq. No. 1 Commissioner of Finance of the City of New York, and CITY OF NEW YORK, Respondents. ----------------------------------------------------------------X The following e-filed papers read herein: NYSCEF Doc No.:

Notice Petition, Petition, Supporting Affirmations, and Exhibits Annexed ...................... ........ . 1-16 Answer and Exhibits Annexed ...................... .. . 21-27 Reply Affirmation and Exhibits Annexed ................ . 31-35

This is a CPLR article 78 proceeding challenging respondents' alleged misclassification

of petitioner's property at 343 Ralph Avenue in Brooklyn, New York (Block 1156, Lot 1) (the

"Property") as Tax Class 4 instead of Tax Class 1 in each of fiscal years 2016/2017, 201.7/2018,

2018/2019, and 2019/2020. 1 According to petitioner's counsel, the alleged misclassification

1 Notices of Property Value, dated Jan. 15, 2016, Jan. 15, 2017, Jan. 15, 2018, and Jan. 15, 2019 [* 1] (NYSCEF Doc No. 7). 1 of 4 FILED: KINGS COUNTY CLERK 06/10/2024 12:38 PM INDEX NO. 532209/2023 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 36 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 06/10/2024

Index No. 532209/23

resulted in petitioner's overpayment of a total of $23,162.04 to respondents ih property taxes for

the fiscal years at issue. 2

On March 31, 2022, petitioner submitted to respondents a "Clerical Error or Error in

Description Form" requesting, on the basis of the alleged clerical error, that the tax class of the

Property be reclassified to Tax Class 1. 3 Approximately 13 months later, on July 6, 2023,

respondents denied petitioner's request, explaining that "the issue in [petitioner's] application

[was] not due to a clerical error or an error in description, and therefore no action ha[d] been

taken." 4

On November 3, 2023, petitioner commenced this CPLR article 78 proceeding

contending that respondents acted arbitrary and capriciously in allegedly misclassifying the

Property as Tax Class 1. Petitioner requested that the Court direct respondents to correct this so-

called clerical error and, upon correction, to "recalculate[e] the assessed values of the Property

for [fiscal year] 2017 through [fiscal year] 2020." 5 On February 6, 2024, respondents interposed.

their joint answer, asserting (as relevant herein) that respondents "rationally and reasonably

denied [p]etitioner' s application[] for retroactive reclassification and reassessment because it did

not allege a bona fide 'clerical error' or 'error of description. "' 6

After oral argument, the matter· was fully submitted on April 4, 2024, with the Court

reserving decision.

2 Petitioner's counsel's spreadshee~ (NYSCEF Doc No. 11)._ 3 Petitioner's Request #56748 (NYSCEF Doc No. _15).

4 Respondents' "Determination of Clerical Error Remission" (NYSCEF Doc No. 16).

5 Petition,,, 49-51; "Wherefore" clause,§§ (i) through (iv) (NYSCEF Doc No. 1). 6 Answer,, 105 (NYSCEF Doc No. 21).

2 2 of 4 [* 2] FILED: KINGS COUNTY CLERK 06/10/2024 12:38 PM INDEX NO. 532209/2023 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 36 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 06/10/2024 Index No. 532209/23

In a very recent case that is "on all fours" with this one, the First Judicial Department

rejected the "clerical error" challenge to respondents' denial of tax reclassification of a similar

type of property as is the instance here (an unimproved parcel of land). See Matter of 3061-63

Third Ave. LLC v Soliman, 223 AD3d 548 (1s t Dept, Jan. 23, 2024). As the First Judicial

Department held in Matter of 3061-63 Third Ave. LLC:

"It was rational for [respondent New York City Department of Finance or DOF] to find that the regulatory error of description provision allowing for corrections of an '[i]ncorrect tax classification' . . . does not apply, as the alleged misclassification was not 'due to an inventory error concerning the records ... of · the physical characteristics of the property' (19 RCNY 53-02 [b] [l]). It was also rational for DOF to find that the provision allowing for corrections of ·an '[i]naccurate building class that affected assessed value,' asserted in the petition, also does not apply, as the example in the regulation identifies a warehouse being classified as a retail building, whereas petitioner's building class description of vacant land was not erroneous (19 RCNY 53-02 [b] [10]). Any effects on the assessed valuation arose from the alleged misinterpretation by DOF of RPTL [Real Property Tax Law] 1802 (1) (d) ... , not from any misdescription of the property itself (see Matter of Better World [Re(ll Estate Group v. New York City Dept. of Fin.}, 122 A.D.3d [27,] 29-30, 35-37, 992 N.Y.S.2d 247 [2d Dept. 2014] [two- family house under construction misdescribed as three-family house with a store or office]; compare Matter of Shore Dev. Partners v. Board of Assessors, 82 A.D.3d 988, 990, 918 N.Y.S.2d 566 [2d Dept. 2011] [holding, in RPTL article 7 proceeding, that property zoned as both residential and commercial should be classified as residential])."

Matter of 3061-63 Third Ave. LLC, 223 AD3d at 549-550.

The First Judicial Department's opinion in Matter of 3061-63 Third Ave. LLC was

followed and applied by Justice Ingrid Joseph of this Court in Matter of 265 Penn Realty Corp.

v Soliman, 2024 NY Slip Op 30908(U) (Sup Ct, Kings County, Mar. 6, 2024), and Matter of

Emmons Realty LLC v Soliman, 2024 NY Slip Op 30880(U) (Sup Ct, Kings County, Mar. 6,

2024 ), each of which presented a fact pattern that was likewise "on all fours" with this case. I

A repetition of Justice Joseph's reasoning is unnecessary. 3

3 of 4 [* 3] FILED: KINGS COUNTY CLERK 06/10/2024 12:38 PM INDEX NO. 532209/2023 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 36 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 06/10/2024

In the absence of a ruling to the contrary from the Second Judicial Department or the

Court of Appeals, this Court is bound by the First Judicial Department's opinion in Matter of

3061-63 Third Ave. LLC. See Mountain View Coach, Inc. v Storms, 102 AD2d 663,664 (2d Dept

1984).

Accordingly, it is

ORDERED that respondents' determination that "the issue in [petitioner's] application

[was] not due to a clerical error or an error in description" was neither arbitrary nor capricim1s;

and it is further

ORDERED and ADJUDGED that the petition is denied and the proceeding is dismissed.

This constitutes the Decision and Judgment of the Court.

i.

4 of 4 [* 4]