| Matter of Eckerd Corp. v Gilchrist |
| 2007 NY Slip Op 07980 [44 AD3d 1239] |
| October 25, 2007 |
| Appellate Division, Third Department |
| In the Matter of Eckerd Corporation, Individually and on Behalf ofColumbia 19th St., LLC, Appellant, v Mark Gilchrist, as Assessor of the City of Watervliet, etal., Respondents. (And Two Other Related Proceedings.) |
—[*1] Hacker & Murphy, Latham (David R. Murphy of counsel), for respondents.
Carpinello, J. Appeal from an order of the Supreme Court (Teresi, J.), entered August 1,2006 in Albany County, which dismissed petitioner's applications, in three proceedings pursuantto RPTL article 7, to reduce tax assessments on certain real property leased by petitioner.
At issue in these RPTL article 7 proceedings is a 1.6-acre parcel of property located in theCity of Watervliet, Albany County. The site, which encompasses an entire city block withfrontage on four streets, was assembled from 16 different parcels in 1999. In 2000, all existingstructures on the properties were demolished and a freestanding national chain pharmacy storewas constructed. In December 2001, the property was sold in an arm's length transaction forapproximately $4 million. In July 2003, it was resold in another arm's length transaction for$4.85 million.[*2]
Petitioner now seeks to reduce its 2002, 2003 and 2004real property tax assessments on the property. For each of these years, it was assessed at $2.8million. In support of its petition, petitioner submitted the report of an appraiser who valued theproperty at $1.75 million for 2002 and $1.74 million for 2003 and 2004. Respondents' appraiservalued the property at $4 million for 2002, $4.25 million for 2003 and $4.4 million for 2004.Following a nonjury trial, Supreme Court rejected petitioner's challenges to the assessments. Inupholding same, Supreme Court found that "[b]oth the sale and resale of the subject property asimproved with the freestanding Eckerd drugstore building document a fair market value far inexcess of the assessed values challenged herein." Petitioner now appeals.
Respondents do not dispute that petitioner came forward with substantial evidence to rebutthe presumption of validity that attached to the assessments (compare Matter of Eckerd Corp.v Semon, 44 AD3d 1232 [2007] [decided herewith]). Thus, theissue distills to whether Supreme Court's determination is supported by the weight of theevidence (see Matter of FMC Corp. [Peroxygen Chems. Div.] v Unmack, 92 NY2d 179,188 [1998]). Indeed, Supreme Court's role was to "weigh the entire record, including evidence ofclaimed deficiencies in the assessment, to determine whether petitioner has established by apreponderance of the evidence that its property has been overvalued" (id.). Citing a recentcase wherein it successfully challenged its assessments on another similar parcel based on theopinion of the same appraiser (seeMatter of Eckerd Corp. v Semon, 35 AD3d 931 [2006]), petitioner essentially arguesthat the value opinions reached by the appraiser here were also the best evidence of market valuesuch that Supreme Court erred in finding otherwise. We are unpersuaded.
The critical distinguishing factor between the instant proceedings and other proceedingspreviously before this Court (see id.; see also Matter of Eckerd Corp. v Semon,44 AD3d 1232 [2007] [decided herewith], supra) is theevidence of the recent arm's length sales. In finding that petitioner did not meet its burden ofproving that the subject assessments were excessive, Supreme Court specifically relied uponthese recent sales as the best evidence of value. It is well settled that recent arm's length sales areindeed the best indicator of actual market value (see Matter of FMC Corp. [PeroxygenChems. Div.] v Unmack, 92 NY2d at189; Matter of Allied Corp. v Town ofCamillus, 80 NY2d 351, 356 [1992]; Matter of New Cobleskill Assoc. v Assessors ofTown of Cobleskill, 280 AD2d 745, 747 [2001], lv denied 96 NY2d 715 [2001]).
Although petitioner's appraiser testified that these recent sales—the latest of which hedid not even know about—did not alter his opinion as to the property's value for the yearsin question, his opinion "[was] given no weight" by Supreme Court, as it "[flew] in the face ofobjective data found in the marketplace, particularly a sale and resale of the subject property intwo arm's length transactions." Notably, this Court generally defers to Supreme Court'scredibility determinations in such matters (see e.g. Matter of NYCO Mins., Inc. v Town of Lewis, 42 AD3d841, 844 [2007]; Matter of ErieBlvd. Hydropower, L.P. v Town of Ephratah Bd. of Assessors, 9 AD3d 540, 542 [2004];Matter of Golub Corporation/Price Chopper Operating Co. v Assessor of Town ofQueensbury, 282 AD2d 962, 962 [2001]). Thus, we discern no basis upon which to interferewith the court's credibility finding regarding this appraiser under the facts of this case.[*3]
Mercure, J.P., Peters, Spain and Kane, JJ., concur.Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.