IN RE: 106 Astoria Blvd. (2026)

Submitted—March 17, 2026

DECISION & ORDER

O/

In a proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78 to review four determinations of the Department of Finance of the City of New York, each dated August 10, 2023, which denied the petitioner's four applications for tax reassessment and reclassification of certain real properties, the appeal is from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Kevin J. Kerrigan, J.), entered June 27, 2024.  The judgment, inter alia, granted the petition, annulled the determinations, and directed that the subject properties be reassessed and reclassified as tax class one.

ORDERED that the judgment is affirmed, with costs.

In June 2023, the petitioner (hereinafter the taxpayer) submitted requests to the New York City Department of Finance (hereinafter the DOF) to reclassify and reassess four vacant lots located in Queens (hereinafter the properties) from tax class four to tax class one.  In determinations dated August 10, 2023, the DOF denied the requests, finding that the properties were appropriately classified.  Thereafter, the taxpayer commenced this CPLR article 78 proceeding against the DOF's Commissioner and City of New York (hereinafter together the appellants) to annul the determinations.  In a judgment entered June 27, 2024, the Supreme Court granted the petition, annulled the determinations, and directed that the properties be reassessed and reclassified as tax class one.  This appeal ensued.

Administrative Code of the City of New York § 11–206 provides that “[t]he commissioner of finance may correct any assessment or tax which is erroneous due to a clerical error or to an error of description contained in the several books of annual record of assessed valuations, or in the assessments-rolls.”  Pursuant to the Rules of the City of New York Department of Finance in effect at the time of the subject determination (see 19 RCNY former §§ 53–01, 53–02 [hereinafter together the clerical error rule] ), an “[i]naccurate building class that affected assessed value” constitutes a clerical error or error of description (id. former § 53–02[b][10] ).  The clerical error rule then in effect provided that such errors of description may be corrected by application to the City of New York within six years of the error (see id. former §§ 53–01, 53–02).  Contrary to the appellants' contention, the Supreme Court did not err by reaching the merits of the petition in this CPLR article 78 proceeding (see Matter of Block 3738 Constr.  Corp. v Niblack, 234 AD3d 955, 957;  Matter of Better World Real Estate Group v New York City Dept. of Fin., 122 AD3d 27, 33).  To the extent that the decision of the Appellate Division, First Department, in Matter of 3061–63 Third Ave., LLC v Soliman (223 AD3d 548) is inconsistent with our conclusion, we decline to follow it.

“ ‘Judicial review of an administrative determination not made after a quasi-judicial hearing is limited to 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’ ” (Matter of 232 Smith St., LLC v. Soliman, 235 AD3d 967, 968, quoting Matter of Lake v New York City Employees' Retirement Sys., 202 AD3d 682, 683;  see CPLR 7803).  In New York City, tax class one property includes “all vacant land located within a special assessing unit which is a city” that is either zoned residential or situated immediately adjacent to qualifying residential property, “other than such land in the borough of Manhattan” (RPTL 1802[1][d][i];  see 1801[a];  Matter of 232 Smith St., LLC v. Soliman, 235 AD3d at 968).  Tax class four property consists of “all other real property which is not designated class one, class two, or class three” (RPTL 1802[1] ).  Accordingly, vacant land that is zoned residential and located within New York City but outside of the borough of Manhattan is properly classified as tax class one, regardless of a commercial overlay (see Matter of Shore Dev. Partners v Board of Assessors, 82 AD3d 988, 990).

Here, the properties are four vacant lots located in Queens that were zoned R6B residential.  The appellants should have classified the properties as tax class one, regardless of any commercial overlay, and their failure to do so was an error of law (see RPTL 1802[1];  Matter of 232 Smith St., LLC v. Soliman, 235 AD3d at 968).  Accordingly, the Supreme Court properly granted the petition, annulled the determinations, and directed that the properties be reassessed and reclassified as tax class one.

DILLON, J.P., BRATHWAITE NELSON, LOVE and MCCORMACK, JJ., concur.

ENTER:

Darrell M. Joseph

Clerk of the Court