IN RE: BENJAMIN BEECHWOOD OCEAN WAY (2026)

DECISION & ORDER

In a proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78 to review a determination of the Department of Finance of the City of New York dated March 7, 2023, which denied the petitioner's application for tax reassessment and reclassification of certain real property, Preston Niblack and the City of New York appeal from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Kevin J. Kerrigan, J.), entered January 2, 2024.  The judgment granted the petition, annulled the determination, granted the petitioner's application for tax reassessment and reclassification for the fiscal year 2023, and directed that the subject property be reassessed and reclassified as tax class one.

ORDERED that the judgment is affirmed, with costs.

The petitioner (hereinafter the taxpayer) submitted a request to the Department of Finance of the City of New York (hereinafter the DOF) for tax reassessment and reclassification of a vacant lot located in Queens (hereinafter the parcel) from tax class four to tax class one for the fiscal year 2023.  In a determination dated March 7, 2023, the DOF denied the request.  Thereafter, the taxpayer commenced this CPLR article 78 proceeding against Preston Niblack, the Commissioner of the DOF, and the City of New York (hereinafter together the appellants) to annul the determination.  By judgment entered January 2, 2024, the Supreme Court granted the petition, annulled the determination, granted the taxpayer's application for tax reassessment and reclassification for fiscal year 2023, and directed that the parcel 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 determination (see id. former §§ 53–01, 53–02 [hereinafter together the clerical error rules] ), an “[i]naccurate building class that affected assessed value” constitutes a clerical error or error of description (19 RCNY former 53–02[b][10] ).  The clerical error rules 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 232 Smith St., LLC v Soliman, 235 AD3d 967, 968;  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, and we note that the First Department has declined to follow it as well (see Matter of Fordham Hill Owners Corp. v Soliman, 237 AD3d 402, 407).

“ ‘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 at 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];  see RPTL 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 as 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” (Matter of 232 Smith St., LLC v. Soliman, 235 AD3d at 968;  see Matter of Shore Dev. Partners v Board of Assessors, 82 AD3d 988, 990).

Here, the parcel is a vacant lot located in Queens and was zoned R6 residential.  The appellants should have classified the parcel 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;  Matter of Shore Dev. Partners v Board of Assessors, 82 AD3d at 990).

The appellants' remaining contentions are without merit.

Accordingly, the Supreme Court properly granted the petition, annulled the determination, granted the taxpayer's application for tax reassessment and reclassification for the fiscal year 2023, and directed that the parcel be reassessed and reclassified as tax class one.

DILLON, J.P., DUFFY, LANDICINO and GOLDBERG VELAZQUEZ, JJ., concur.