IN RE: Nalin M. FERNANDO (2026)

DECISION & ORDER

In a proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78 to review a determination of a hearing officer dated August 1, 2024, denying the petitioner's application for small claims assessment review pursuant to Real Property Tax Law article 7 to reduce his property tax assessment for the tax year 2024/2025, the petitioner appeals from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Nassau County (Gary M. Carlton, J.), dated December 3, 2024.  The judgment denied the petition and dismissed the proceeding.

ORDERED that the judgment is affirmed, without costs or disbursements.

The petitioner owned residential property located in the Village of Garden City (hereinafter the subject property).  The petitioner filed a grievance to reduce the property tax assessment on the subject property.  After the grievance was granted only to the extent of awarding a limited reduction of the tax assessment, the petitioner, pro se, filed a small claims assessment review (hereinafter SCAR) application pursuant to Real Property Tax Law article 7 to reduce his property tax assessment for the tax year 2024/2025.  Following a hearing, the hearing officer denied the application.  Thereafter, the petitioner commenced this proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78 to review the hearing officer's determination.  The Supreme Court denied the petition and dismissed the proceeding.  The petitioner appeals.

The Real Property Tax Law provides that SCAR hearings are to be conducted on an informal basis, and it vests the hearing officer with the discretion to consider a wide variety of sources and information in evaluating tax assessments (see RPTL 732[2];  Matter of Barringer v. Town of Newburgh, 242 AD3d 983, 985;  Matter of Vlaun v Board of Assessment Review for the Town of Babylon, 219 AD3d 492, 493).  “The hearing officer shall consider the best evidence presented in each particular case,” which evidence may include, inter alia, the equalization rate, the residential assessment ratio, and the assessment of comparable residential properties (RPTL 732[2];  see Matter of Yeung v Assessor of the Vil. of Great Neck Estates, 252 AD3d 120;  Matter of Barringer v. Town of Newburgh, 242 AD3d at 985).  “When a hearing officer's determination is contested, the court's role is limited to ascertaining whether that determination has a rational basis, that is, whether it is not affected by an error of law or not arbitrary and capricious” (Matter of Vlaun v Board of Assessment Review for the Town of Babylon, 219 AD3d at 493 [internal quotation marks omitted];  see CPLR 7803[3];  Matter of Klein v. Department of Assessment, 149 AD3d 935, 937).  Here, the hearing officer's determination that the petitioner failed to meet his burden of presenting sufficient evidence of excessive assessment had a rational basis (see Matter of Vlaun v Board of Assessment Review for the Town of Babylon, 219 AD3d at 493;  Matter of Lauer v. Board of Assessors, 51 AD3d 926, 927;  Matter of Gershon v Nassau County Assessment Review Commn., 29 AD3d 909, 909).

The petitioner's remaining contention is improperly raised for the first time on appeal.

LASALLE, P.J., CHAMBERS, TAYLOR and HOM, JJ., concur.