IN RE: NBM DEVELOPMENT (2026)

DECISION & ORDER

In related proceedings pursuant to Real Property Tax Law article 7 to review real property tax assessments for the tax years 2017/2018 through 2023/2024, the appeal is from an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Michael L. Pesce, J.H.O.), dated February 7, 2025.  The order granted the petitioner's motion pursuant to CPLR 602 and Real Property Tax Law § 710 to consolidate the proceedings and for summary judgment on so much of the petition as sought to reclassify the subject property from class four commercial to class one residential, to reduce the assessments for those tax years based on the reclassification, and for corresponding tax refunds for those tax years and denied the cross-motion of the Tax Commission of City of New York and the Commissioner of Finance of City of New York for summary judgment dismissing those portions of the petition.

ORDERED that the order is affirmed, with costs.

The petitioner owns a vacant lot located in Staten Island and commenced seven related proceedings against the appellants pursuant to Real Property Tax Law article 7 to review tax assessments for the subject property for each tax year from 2017/2018 through 2023/2024.  The petitioner moved pursuant to CPLR 602 and Real Property Tax Law § 710 to consolidate the proceedings and for summary judgment on so much of the petition as sought to reclassify the property from class four commercial to class one residential for the tax years 2017/2018 through 2023/2024, to reduce the assessments for those tax years based on the reclassification, and for corresponding tax refunds for those tax years.  The appellants cross-moved for summary judgment dismissing those portions of the petition.  In an order dated February 7, 2025, the Supreme Court granted the petitioner's motion and denied the appellants' cross-motion.  This appeal ensued.

A motion pursuant to CPLR 602(a) and Real Property Tax Law § 710 to consolidate pending proceedings is addressed to the sound discretion of the trial court (see U.S. Bank N.A. v. Stuart, 245 AD3d 981, 982;  Leocorps v. Bromberg, 127 AD3d 931, 932).  Consolidation is favored by the courts in the interests of justice and judicial economy and should be granted where common questions of fact or law exist, absent a showing of prejudice to a substantial right by the party opposing the motion (see HSBC Bank USA, N.A. v. Francis, 214 AD3d 58, 62;  Disa Realty, Inc. v. Rao, 198 AD3d 869, 871).  Here, the Supreme Court providently exercised its discretion in consolidating the seven tax certiorari proceedings as there are common questions of law and fact that predominate in these proceedings, and the appellants failed to establish that consolidation would prejudice a substantial right of the appellants (see CPLR 602[a];  RPTL 710;  U.S. Bank N.A. v. Stuart, 245 AD3d at 983;  Matter of Dune Alpin Farm Corp. v Assessor of Town of E. Hampton, 143 A.D.2d 748, 749).

Moreover, by demonstrating that the property was a vacant lot that was residentially zoned R3–2 and located in Staten Island, the petitioners demonstrated, prima facie, that the property should have been classified as tax class one rather than as tax class four, regardless of the commercial overlay (see RPTL 1802[1];  Matter of Emmons Realty, LLC v. Soliman, 247 AD3d 891;  Matter of Wavebrook Assoc. v. Niblack, 243 AD3d 669, 670;  Matter of 136–21 Hillside Ave., LLC v Niblack, 235 AD3d 961, 962).  In opposition, the appellants failed to raise a triable issue of fact.  Moreover, for similar reasons, the appellants' failed to establish their prima facie entitlement to summary judgment in support of their cross-motion.  Accordingly, the Supreme Court properly granted that branch of the petitioner's motion which was for summary judgment on so much of the petition as sought to reclassify the property from class four commercial to class one residential for the tax years 2017/2018 through 2023/2024, to reduce the assessments for those tax years based on the reclassification, and for corresponding tax refunds for those tax years and denied the appellants' cross-motion for summary judgment dismissing those portions of the petition.

IANNACCI, J.P., CHRISTOPHER, VOUTSINAS and HOM, JJ., concur.