IN RE: CUBA LAKE COMMITTEE FOR FAIR ASSESSMENTS (2026)

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER

It is hereby ORDERED that the judgment insofar as appealed from is unanimously reversed on the law without costs, the petition-complaint is denied in its entirety, and judgment is granted in favor of respondents-defendants as follows:

It is ADJUDGED and DECLARED that the 2023 tax assessment roll is valid.

Memorandum: Petitioners-plaintiffs (petitioners) commenced this hybrid CPLR article 78 proceeding and declaratory judgment action seeking, inter alia, to annul and declare unenforceable the 2023 tax assessment roll of respondent-defendant Town of Cuba (Town) on various grounds, including that the methodology used in determining the 2023 tax assessment roll was arbitrary or capricious and unconstitutional. Respondents-defendants (respondents) filed an answer seeking dismissal of the petition-complaint (petition). Respondents now appeal from a judgment that effectively granted the petition insofar as it sought a declaration that the 2023 final tax assessment roll is null and void and reinstatement of the 2022 final tax assessment roll until such time as the Town performs a new reassessment. We reverse the judgment insofar as appealed from.

We agree with respondents that, contrary to petitioners’ assertion, Supreme Court erred in determining that petitioners overcame the presumption of validity attached to the property valuation and that the methodology used was arbitrary and capricious. “The cardinal principle of property valuation for tax purposes, set forth in the State Constitution, is that property ‘[a]ssessments shall in no case exceed full value’ ” (Matter of Commerce Holding Corp. v. Board of Assessors of Town of Babylon, 88 N.Y.2d 724, 729, 649 N.Y.S.2d 932, 673 N.E.2d 127 [1996], quoting NY Const, art XVI, § 2). “The concept of ‘full value’ is typically equated with market value, or what ‘a seller under no compulsion to sell and a buyer under no compulsion to buy’ would agree to as the subject property's price” (id.). “In view of this market-oriented definition of full value, the assessment of property value for tax purposes must take into account any factor affecting a property's marketability” (id.). Nonetheless, “while property must be assessed at market value, there is no fixed method for determining that value” (Matter of Allied Corp. v. Town of Camillus, 80 N.Y.2d 351, 356, 590 N.Y.S.2d 417, 604 N.E.2d 1348 [1992], rearg denied 81 N.Y.2d 784, 594 N.Y.S.2d 720, 610 N.E.2d 393 [1993]). “The ultimate purpose of valuation ․ is to arrive at a fair and realistic value of the property involved so that all property owners contribute equitably to the public fisc. Any fair and nondiscriminating method that will achieve that result is acceptable” (id.; see Commerce Holding Corp., 88 N.Y.2d at 731, 649 N.Y.S.2d 932, 673 N.E.2d 127).

Where, as here, “ ‘the challenge is based upon the method employed in the assessment of several properties rather than the overvaluation or undervaluation of [a] specific propert[y], a taxpayer may ․ mount a collateral attack on the taxing authority's action through either a declaratory judgment action or a proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78’ ” (Matter of Cayuga Grandview Beach Coop. Corp. v. Town Bd. of Town of Springport, 51 A.D.3d 1364, 1364, 857 N.Y.S.2d 862 [4th Dept. 2008], lv denied 11 N.Y.3d 702, 864 N.Y.S.2d 389, 894 N.E.2d 653 [2008] [emphasis omitted]; see Matter of Estrellita LLC v. Town Bd. of Town of Alexandria, 60 A.D.3d 1363, 1363, 875 N.Y.S.2d 402 [4th Dept. 2009]). “An assessor's property valuation resulting in a local tax assessment is presumptively valid” (Matter of Abele v. Dimitriadis, 53 A.D.3d 969, 971, 862 N.Y.S.2d 182 [3d Dept. 2008], lv denied 12 N.Y.3d 706, 879 N.Y.S.2d 52, 906 N.E.2d 1086 [2009]; see Matter of Scarsdale Comm. for Fair Assessments v. Albanese, 202 A.D.3d 966, 969, 163 N.Y.S.3d 570 [2d Dept. 2022]; Matter of Hudson Prop. Owners’ Coalition, Inc. v. Slocum, 92 A.D.3d 1198, 1199, 939 N.Y.S.2d 177 [3d Dept. 2012]; see generally Matter of FMC Corp. [Peroxygen Chems. Div.] v. Unmack, 92 N.Y.2d 179, 187, 677 N.Y.S.2d 269, 699 N.E.2d 893 [1998]). “To overcome the presumption, property owners must present substantial evidence of overvaluation through proof based on sound theory and objective data” (Abele, 53 A.D.3d at 971, 862 N.Y.S.2d 182 [internal quotation marks omitted]; see Scarsdale Comm. for Fair Assessments, 202 A.D.3d at 969, 163 N.Y.S.3d 570; Hudson Prop. Owners’ Coalition, Inc., 92 A.D.3d at 1199-1200, 939 N.Y.S.2d 177). When property owners “fail[ ] to rebut the presumption, the municipality's assessor has no obligation to go ‘forward with proof of the correctness of [its] valuation,’ and the petition is to be dismissed” (Matter of Board of Mgrs. of French Oaks Condominium v. Town of Amherst, 23 N.Y.3d 168, 175, 989 N.Y.S.2d 642, 12 N.E.3d 1072 [2014]).

Here, petitioners “failed to submit any evidence, such as ‘a detailed, competent appraisal based on standard, accepted appraisal techniques and prepared by a qualified appraiser’ ․, showing that the method employed ․ failed to achieve uniformity, was discriminatory or was otherwise improper” (Hudson Prop. Owners’ Coalition, Inc., 92 A.D.3d at 1200, 939 N.Y.S.2d 177). Petitioners instead merely asserted that the professional real estate appraisal and consulting firm hired by the Town to perform the reassessment had used a flawed methodology and, in support of that assertion, primarily relied upon “land assessment analysis” reports prepared by a non-expert property owner, petitioner-plaintiff Harry W. Keeley, who claimed, with minimal explanation of his method, that his analyses showed anomalies in the Town's assessment (see id.). We agree with respondents that these “self-generated and unverified [analyses] lack[ ] the type of evidentiary value necessary to rebut the presumption” (Matter of Channin v. Minoia, 221 A.D.3d 1119, 1121, 198 N.Y.S.3d 834 [3d Dept. 2023]). We conclude that petitioners’ submissions in support of the petition “fell woefully short of demonstrating any infirmity in the formula used by the [firm] in assessing the properties” (Hudson Prop. Owners’ Coalition, Inc., 92 A.D.3d at 1200, 939 N.Y.S.2d 177).

Moreover, we agree with respondents that, contrary to the court's conclusion, the record establishes that the firm rationally employed a market value method of valuation that included a comparative property analysis of residential sales and necessarily took into account the affect on marketability of those properties located on leased land (see generally RPTL 302 [1]; Commerce Holding Corp., 88 N.Y.2d at 729, 649 N.Y.S.2d 932, 673 N.E.2d 127). We conclude that, “[a]lthough petitioners take issue with how [the firm] arrived at [its] calculations, ․ their conclusory [and unsubstantiated] assertion that the methodology used was arbitrary was insufficient to defeat the presumption that the assessment was valid” (Matter of Eanniello v. Morris, 234 A.D.2d 642, 643, 650 N.Y.S.2d 61 [3d Dept. 1996]).

Finally, we conclude that petitioners failed to establish that the other violations of law they have alleged would warrant invalidation of the entire 2023 assessment roll (see generally Matter of Hellerstein v. Assessor of Town of Islip, 37 N.Y.2d 1, 13-14, 371 N.Y.S.2d 388, 332 N.E.2d 279 [1975]).