IN RE: ESTRELLITA LLC and St. Lawrence Grande (2009)

Petitioners commenced this CPLR article 78 proceeding seeking, inter alia, to annul the tax assessment of their properties in respondent Town of Alexandria.   Respondents appeal from an order denying their motion to dismiss the petition.   We reject respondents' contention that a CPLR article 78 proceeding is not an appropriate procedural vehicle for challenging the tax assessments and that RPTL article 7 is the exclusive procedural vehicle for such a challenge.   A challenge to an individual property tax assessment on the ground that the assessment was illegal, excessive or unequal should be brought in a certiorari proceeding under RPTL article 7. Here, however, the challenge is to “ ‘the method employed in the assessment of several properties rather than the overvaluation or undervaluation of [a] specific propert[y] ․,’ ” and thus a proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78 is not inappropriate (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, lv. denied 11 N.Y.3d 702, 864 N.Y.S.2d 389, 894 N.E.2d 653;  Matter of Board of Mgrs. of Greens of N. Hills Condominium v. Board of Assessors of County of Nassau, 202 A.D.2d 417, 419, 608 N.Y.S.2d 694, lv. denied 83 N.Y.2d 757, 615 N.Y.S.2d 874, 639 N.E.2d 415;  Matter of Averbach v. Board of Assessors of Town of Delhi, 176 A.D.2d 1151, 1152, 575 N.Y.S.2d 964).   Also contrary to respondent's contention, the petition does not fail to state a cause of action.   Indeed, the petition sufficiently states “a cause of action against respondents for purportedly utilizing an unconstitutional reassessment methodology” (Averbach, 176 A.D.2d at 1153, 575 N.Y.S.2d 964).

It is hereby ORDERED that the order so appealed from is unanimously affirmed without costs.

MEMORANDUM: