Achille v. Laveman

206 N.Y.S.3d 108

224 A.D.3d 744

In the Matter of Maryse ACHILLE, et al., respondents,

v.Robin S. LAVEMAN, etc., et al., appellants.

Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Second Department, New York.

Submitted—October 10, 2023

February 14, 2024

Thomas A. Adams, County Attorney, Mineola, NY (Robert F. Van der Waag of counsel), for appellants.

Litt Law Group, LLC, Rockville Centre, NY (Robert G. Litt of counsel), for respondents.

JOSEPH J. MALTESE, J.P., LARA J. GENOVESI, WILLIAM G. FORD, LOURDES M. VENTURA, JJ.

DECISION & ORDER

In a proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78 to review a determination of the Nassau County Assessment Review Commission dated October 13, 2020, which denied the petitioners’ request to reinstate and amend their applications for corrections of assessments for the 2021/2022 tax year, the appeal is from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Nassau County (Thomas Rademaker, J.), entered March 17, 2021. The judgment granted the petition, annulled the determination, and remitted the matter to the Nassau County Assessment Review Commission for reinstatement and amendment of the applications and consideration on the merits thereof.

ORDERED that the judgment is affirmed, with costs.

The petitioners are the former owners of certain separate lots of real property located in Nassau County. In 2020, the petitioners filed separate applications for corrections of assessments for the 2021/2022 tax year with the Nassau County Assessment Review Commission (hereinafter ARC). ARC sent form letters dated July 8, 2020, to the petitioners stating that their applications were defective because "[t]he authorization[s] [were] missing." The form letters instructed each petitioner to correct the defect by submitting an authorization in compliance with ARC rules by August 12, 2020. Prior to the deadline, the petitioners filed five authorizations signed by the current owners of each subject property, designating the petitioners’ counsel as their representative. By form letters dated September 4, 2020, ARC dismissed the applications, concluding that the authorizations were not valid. The petitioners requested that ARC reinstate and amend the applications so that the current owners could be substituted for the petitioners as named applicants. In an email dated October 13, 2020, ARC refused to reinstate or amend the applications, reasoning that dismissed applications cannot be amended.

The petitioners thereafter commenced this proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78 against various Nassau County officials to review ARC’S determination. The Supreme Court granted the petition, annulled the determination dated October 13, 2020, which denied the petitioners’ request, inter alia, to reinstate the applications, and remitted the matter to ARC for reinstatement and amendment of the applications and consideration on the merits thereof. This appeal ensued.

[1, 2] The Supreme Court properly determined that the petitioners had exhausted their administrative remedies prior to commencing this proceeding. "Generally, a party who objects to the determination of an administrative agency is required to exhaust all available administrative remedies before seeking judicial review" (Matter of Swinton v. United Fedn. of Teachers, Local 2, Am. Fedn. of Teachers [AFT], Am. Fedn. of Labor & Congress of Indus. Orgs. [AFL-CIO], 197 A.D.3d 1114, 1115, 150 N.Y.S.3d 620; see Matter of Kaneev v. City of New York Envtl. Control Bd., 149 A.D.3d 742, 743, 52 N.Y.S.3d 107). Here, ARC unequivocally denied the petitioners’ request to reinstate and amend the applications on October 13, 2020, when it stated that dismissed applications could not be amended. Under these circumstances, the petitioners exhausted their administrative remedies prior to commencing this proceeding (see Matter of Kaneev v. City of New York Envtl. Control Bd., 149 A.D.3d at 744, 52 N.Y.S.3d 107).

[3] The Supreme Court also properly determined that ARC’s determination not to reinstate and amend the applications was arbitrary and capricious. In a CPLR article 78 proceeding to review a determination of an administrative agency made without an evidentiary hearing, the standard of review is whether the "determination was made in violation of lawful procedure, was affected by an error of law or was arbitrary and capricious or an abuse of discretion" (CPLR 7803[3]; see Matter of 96 Wythe Acquisition, LLC v. Jiha, 165 A.D.3d 1100, 1101, 87 N.Y.S.3d 55; Matter of Wilson v. New York City Dept. of Hous. Preserv. & Dev., 145 A.D.3d 905, 907, 44 N.Y.S.3d 135). Judicial review "is limited to whether [the] determination was arbitrary [and]...