Plaza Management Co. v. City Rent Agency

New York Court of Appeals

Plaza Management Co. v. City Rent Agency

254 N.E.2d 227, 25 N.Y.2d 630, 306 N.Y.S.2d 11, 1969 N.Y. LEXIS 1003

CourtNew York Court of Appeals

DecidedOctober 30, 1969

StatusPublished

Cited by8 cases

This text of 254 N.E.2d 227 (Plaza Management Co. v. City Rent Agency) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering New York Court of Appeals primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Plaza Management Co. v. City Rent Agency, 254 N.E.2d 227, 25 N.Y.2d 630, 306 N.Y.S.2d 11, 1969 N.Y. LEXIS 1003 (N.Y. 1969).

Pincite

Opinions

Per Curiam.

We thoroughly agree with the Appellate Division’s disposition of this case. Indeed, our affirmance of its order would have been on that court’s opinion were it not for our dissenting brother’s argument, not treated below, that the city’s use of special equalization ratios, as authorized by article 12-A of the Real Property Tax Law (L. 1968, ch. 1069), is somehow “ inconsistent ” with the use of the property’s “ assessed value” to determine what constitutes a “fair return.” The present opinion is, therefore, addressed exclusively to that new argument.

The position taken appears to be virtually identical to a contention which this court considered and rejected in Matter of Hartley Holding Corp. v. Gabel (13 N Y 2d 306, 310), and no purpose is to be served by again discussing the subject. It is sufficient to point out that the .equalization ratio, representing, as it does, a borough-wide average, “ does not purport to measure ” or reflect the value of any particular property. (Bucho Holding Co. v. State Rent Comm., 11 N Y 2d 469, 472, n. 2.) Thus, although the special equalization ratio is about 7'5%, it is .entirely possible for the petitioners’ property to be assessed at any amount up to 100% of its actual value. Certainly, we may not conclude, merely on the basis of the special equalization ratio, that Plaza’s property is actually worth $2,920,000 (its “ equalized” assessed value) or that its actual return will only amount to 4.7%.

It is true, of course, that the special equalization ratio does enable the city to impose a higher tax rate than the Constitution would otherwise permit but this has little, if any, adverse effect on the petitioners. Real estate taxes are not, as suggested, paid by the landlord out of his 6% fair return to which he is entitled. Rather, they are considered to be part of the operating expenses [632]*632of the building which are passed directly on to the tenants (Administrative Code of City of New York, § Y51-5.0, g, [1], [a], [4], [i]). Stated briefly, the guarantee of a minimum return of 6%, over and above operating costs (under the Code), on the assessed valuation of rent-controlled property is, in our view, entirely adequate to insure a landlord again'st an unconstitutional confiscation of his property.

The order appealed from should be affirmed, with costs.

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

Per Curiam.

We thoroughly agree with the Appellate Division’s disposition of this case. Indeed, our affirmance of its order would have been on that court’s opinion were it not for our dissenting brother’s argument, not treated below, that the city’s use of special equalization ratios, as authorized by article 12-A of the Real Property Tax Law (L. 1968, ch. 1069), is somehow “ inconsistent ” with the use of the property’s “ assessed value” to determine what constitutes a “fair return.” The present opinion is, therefore, addressed exclusively to that new argument.

The position taken appears to be virtually identical to a contention which this court considered and rejected in Matter of Hartley Holding Corp. v. Gabel (13 N Y 2d 306, 310), and no purpose is to be served by again discussing the subject. It is sufficient to point out that the .equalization ratio, representing, as it does, a borough-wide average, “ does not purport to measure ” or reflect the value of any particular property. (Bucho Holding Co. v. State Rent Comm., 11 N Y 2d 469, 472, n. 2.) Thus, although the special equalization ratio is about 7'5%, it is .entirely possible for the petitioners’ property to be assessed at any amount up to 100% of its actual value. Certainly, we may not conclude, merely on the basis of the special equalization ratio, that Plaza’s property is actually worth $2,920,000 (its “ equalized” assessed value) or that its actual return will only amount to 4.7%.

It is true, of course, that the special equalization ratio does enable the city to impose a higher tax rate than the Constitution would otherwise permit but this has little, if any, adverse effect on the petitioners. Real estate taxes are not, as suggested, paid by the landlord out of his 6% fair return to which he is entitled. Rather, they are considered to be part of the operating expenses [632]*632of the building which are passed directly on to the tenants (Administrative Code of City of New York, § Y51-5.0, g, [1], [a], [4], [i]). Stated briefly, the guarantee of a minimum return of 6%, over and above operating costs (under the Code), on the assessed valuation of rent-controlled property is, in our view, entirely adequate to insure a landlord again'st an unconstitutional confiscation of his property.

The order appealed from should be affirmed, with costs.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

254 N.E.2d 227, 25 N.Y.2d 630, 306 N.Y.S.2d 11, 1969 N.Y. LEXIS 1003, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/plaza-management-co-v-city-rent-agency-ny-1969.

Opinions

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack