Simensky v. Board of Assessors

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Simensky v. Board of Assessors

50 A.D.2d 847, 377 N.Y.S.2d 114, 1975 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 11718

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

DecidedDecember 15, 1975

StatusPublished

This text of 50 A.D.2d 847 (Simensky v. Board of Assessors) 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

Simensky v. Board of Assessors, 50 A.D.2d 847, 377 N.Y.S.2d 114, 1975 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 11718 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1975).

Pincite

Opinion

— In consolidated tax certiorari proceedings, the appeal is from an order of. the Supreme Court, Nassau County, dated February 27, 1975, which, inter alia, directed reduction of the assessments for the tax years in suit. Order affirmed, without costs. The reductions in assessed valuation ordered by Special Term are amply supported by the record on this appeal. We do, however, disagree with Special Term’s statement, in its opinion, that appellant admitted that its assessments were made at various percentages greater than 100%. Petitioner served appellant with demands to admit the ratios, constituting the State equalization rates, for the years in suit and appellant did not specifically deny that these percentages were correct. Inasmuch as the equalization rate exceeded 100% for each of the years in issue and subdivision 1 of section 716 of the Real Property Tax Law appears to preclude a petitioner from using the medium of a demand to admit where the asserted ratio is in excess of 95%, it is difficult to conceive how appellant’s silence could be legally interpreted as an admission of overvaluation. Moreover, the record reveals that even at the trial appellant refused to concede that the State Board of Equalization and Assessment had correctly determined that the village had been assessing at a percentage greater than 100%, although it was content to accept a ratio of 100% in lieu of mounting an evidentiary challenge to the State rates. Hopkins, Acting P. J., Latham, Margett, Christ and Shapiro, JJ., concur.

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

— In consolidated tax certiorari proceedings, the appeal is from an order of. the Supreme Court, Nassau County, dated February 27, 1975, which, inter alia, directed reduction of the assessments for the tax years in suit. Order affirmed, without costs. The reductions in assessed valuation ordered by Special Term are amply supported by the record on this appeal. We do, however, disagree with Special Term’s statement, in its opinion, that appellant admitted that its assessments were made at various percentages greater than 100%. Petitioner served appellant with demands to admit the ratios, constituting the State equalization rates, for the years in suit and appellant did not specifically deny that these percentages were correct. Inasmuch as the equalization rate exceeded 100% for each of the years in issue and subdivision 1 of section 716 of the Real Property Tax Law appears to preclude a petitioner from using the medium of a demand to admit where the asserted ratio is in excess of 95%, it is difficult to conceive how appellant’s silence could be legally interpreted as an admission of overvaluation. Moreover, the record reveals that even at the trial appellant refused to concede that the State Board of Equalization and Assessment had correctly determined that the village had been assessing at a percentage greater than 100%, although it was content to accept a ratio of 100% in lieu of mounting an evidentiary challenge to the State rates. Hopkins, Acting P. J., Latham, Margett, Christ and Shapiro, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

50 A.D.2d 847, 377 N.Y.S.2d 114, 1975 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 11718, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/simensky-v-board-of-assessors-nyappdiv-1975.