Minden Court, Inc. v. Commissioner of Assessment & Taxation

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Minden Court, Inc. v. Commissioner of Assessment & Taxation

63 A.D.2d 804, 405 N.Y.S.2d 152, 1978 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 11754

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York·Decided May 25, 1978·Published

Opinion

&emdash;Cross appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, entered January 18, 1977 in Broome County, upon a decision of the court at a Trial Term which, in a proceeding pursuant to article 7 of the Real Property Tax Law, reduced the assessment upon petitioner’s property, corrected the assessment rolls and directed a refund of taxes. Both appraisers used the capitalization method to assess petitioner’s apartment complex. The only dispute is over the determination of the economic rent. This is a factual determination, and where, as here, the value arrived at by the trial court is within the range of the expert testimony, it will not be disturbed on appeal (Matter of Mayos Clothes v Board of Review of Town of Smithtown, 47 AD2d 531). The city’s allegation that F. H. A. rent restrictions artificially deflated the actual rents relied on by petitioner is not established in the record. The owner testified that F. H. A. rent restriction never forced him to rent an apartment at a lower rate than he could have obtained on the open market. Order affirmed, without costs. Mahoney, P. J., Greenblott, Kane, Main and Mikoll, JJ., concur.

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

&emdash;Cross appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, entered January 18, 1977 in Broome County, upon a decision of the court at a Trial Term which, in a proceeding pursuant to article 7 of the Real Property Tax Law, reduced the assessment upon petitioner’s property, corrected the assessment rolls and directed a refund of taxes. Both appraisers used the capitalization method to assess petitioner’s apartment complex. The only dispute is over the determination of the economic rent. This is a factual determination, and where, as here, the value arrived at by the trial court is within the range of the expert testimony, it will not be disturbed on appeal (Matter of Mayos Clothes v Board of Review of Town of Smithtown, 47 AD2d 531). The city’s allegation that F. H. A. rent restrictions artificially deflated the actual rents relied on by petitioner is not established in the record. The owner testified that F. H. A. rent restriction never forced him to rent an apartment at a lower rate than he could have obtained on the open market. Order affirmed, without costs. Mahoney, P. J., Greenblott, Kane, Main and Mikoll, JJ., concur.

Minden Court, Inc. v. Commissioner of Assessment & Taxation, 63 A.D.2d 804, 405 N.Y.S.2d 152, 1978 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 11754 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1978).

Pincite

63 A.D.2d 804 (Minden Court, Inc. v. Commissioner of Assessment & Taxation) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related