Trump Vill. Section 4, Inc. v. Tax Comm'n of N.Y.

167 N.Y.S.3d 802 (Mem)

In the Matter of TRUMP VILLAGE SECTION 4, INC., appellant,

v.TAX COMMISSION OF the CITY OF NEW YORK, et al., respondents.

2019–11326

Index Nos. 400403/13, 404449/14, 406951/15, 406841/16, 403327/17

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

Argued—March 22, 2022

June 8, 2022

Starkpatch Legal, PLLC, Brooklyn, NY (Martha E. Stark and Allan J. Patricof of counsel), for appellant.

Sylvia O. Hinds–Radix, Corporation Counsel, New York, NY (Andrea M. Chan, Edan Burkett, and Daniel Joy of counsel), for respondents.

MARK C. DILLON, J.P., COLLEEN D. DUFFY, JOSEPH J. MALTESE, LARA J. GENOVESI, JJ.

DECISION & ORDER

In related proceedings pursuant to Real Property Tax Law article 7 to review real property tax assessments for tax years 2013/2014 through 2017/2018, the petitioner appeals from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Michael L. Pesce, J.), dated August 9, 2019. The judgment, after a nonjury trial, denied the petitions and dismissed the proceedings.

ORDERED that the judgment is affirmed, with costs.

The petitioner owns real property, improved by two identical 23–story, multi-family buildings under cooperative ownership, commonly known as Trump Village Section IV, Inc. The petitioner challenged the tax assessments on the property for the tax years 2013/2014 through 2017/2018. The petitioner commenced five proceedings pursuant to Real Property Tax Law article 7 seeking reduction of the assessments. A trial was held. The petitioner presented, inter alia, the testimony and appraisal report of appraiser Matthew Guzowski, while the respondents presented the testimony and appraisal report of appraiser Andrew Albro. Following the trial, in a judgment dated August 9, 2019, the Supreme Court denied the petitions and dismissed the proceedings, finding that the petitioner failed to establish at trial by a preponderance of the evidence that the property was overvalued. The petitioner appeals.

The Supreme Court correctly found that Guzowski's appraisal report constituted substantial evidence of a valid and credible dispute as to the valuation of the property. Substantial evidence is a minimal threshold standard that simply requires that a petitioner demonstrate the existence of a valid and credible dispute regarding valuation (see Matter of FMC Corp. [Peroxygen Chems. Div.] v. Unmack, 92 N.Y.2d 179, 188, 677 N.Y.S.2d 269, 699 N.E.2d 893 ), "which will most often be accomplished by submission of a detailed, competent appraisal based on standard, accepted appraisal techniques and prepared by a qualified appraiser" ( Matter of Boffa v. Assessor and Bd. of Assessment Review of the City of Middletown, 154 A.D.3d 934, 935, 63 N.Y.S.3d 451 [internal quotation marks omitted]; see Matter of Niagara Mohawk Power Corp. v. Assessor of Town of Geddes, 92 N.Y.2d 192, 196, 677 N.Y.S.2d 275, 699 N.E.2d 899 ; Matter of Adirondack Mtn. Reserve v. Board of Assessors of the Town of N. Hudson, 106 A.D.3d 1232, 1234, 966 N.Y.S.2d 532 ). "If the taxpayer satisfies this threshold burden, the presumption disappears and the court ‘must weigh the entire record, including evidence of claimed deficiencies in the assessment, to determine whether petitioner has...