IN RE: 23–25 ASTORIA BLVD (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 April 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 (Chereé A. Buggs, J.), entered January 17, 2024.  The judgment, inter alia, granted the petition, annulled the determination, granted the petitioner's application for tax reassessment and reclassification for the fiscal years 2017 to 2023, and directed that the subject property be reassessed and reclassified as tax class one, building class V0.

ORDERED that the judgment is affirmed, with costs.

In November 2022, 23–25 Astoria Blvd, LLC (hereinafter the LLC), commenced this CPLR article 78 proceeding against Preston Niblack, the Commissioner of the Department of Finance of the City of New York (hereinafter DOF), and the City of New York (hereinafter together the appellants), to annul a determination of the DOF dated April 7, 2023, denying its application for tax reassessment and reclassification of a vacant lot located in Queens (hereinafter the parcel) from tax class four, building class V1, to tax class one, building class V0, for the fiscal years 2017 to 2023.  By judgment entered January 17, 2024, the Supreme Court, among other things, granted the petition, annulled the determination, granted the LLC's application for tax reassessment and reclassification for the fiscal years 2017 to 2023, and directed that the parcel be reassessed and reclassified as tax class one, building class V0. 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 rules] ), 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 rules 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 Emmons Realty, LLC v Soliman, 247 AD3d 891;  Matter of Wavebrook Assoc. v. Niblack, 243 AD3d 669, 670–671;  Matter of Block 3738 Constr.  Corp. v Niblack, 234 AD3d 955, 957).

“ ‘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 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 that was zoned 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).  Accordingly, the Supreme Court properly granted the petition, annulled the determination, granted the LLC's application for tax reassessment and reclassification for the fiscal years 2017 to 2023, and directed that the parcel be reassessed and reclassified as tax class one, building class V0 (see Matter of Emmons Realty, LLC v Soliman, 247 AD3d at 893;  Matter of Wavebrook Assoc. v. Niblack, 243 AD3d at 671;  Matter of Block 3738 Constr.  Corp. v Niblack, 234 AD3d at 958).

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