| Matter of Laurel Hill Farms, Inc., v Board of Assessors of NassauCounty |
| 2008 NY Slip Op 04520 [51 AD3d 794] |
| May 13, 2008 |
| Appellate Division, Second Department |
| In the Matter of Laurel Hill Farms, Inc., Appellant, v Boardof Assessors of Nassau County et al., Respondents. |
—[*1] Lorna B. Goodman, County Attorney, Mineola, N.Y. (Karen Hutson of counsel), forrespondents.
In a hybrid proceeding, inter alia, in effect, pursuant to CPLR article 78 to review adetermination of the Nassau County Board of Assessors dated April 1, 2005, granting theapplication of Laurel Hill Farms, Inc., for an agricultural assessment under Agriculture andMarkets Law § 305 for tax year 2005/2006 only the extent of granting an agriculturalassessment for a portion of certain lots, and action for a judgment declaring that Laurel HillFarms, Inc., is entitled to an agricultural assessment under Agriculture and Markets Law §305 for tax year 2005/2006 for the entirety of the lots, Laurel Hill Farms, Inc., appeals from ajudgment of the Supreme Court, Nassau County (LaMarca, J.), entered May 5, 2006, whichdenied the petition and dismissed the proceeding as time-barred.
Ordered that the judgment is affirmed, with costs.
Had the application of Laurel Hill Farms, Inc. (hereinafter Laurel Hill), for an agriculturalassessment been granted in its entirety, the subject lots would have benefited from increasedpartial exemptions from taxation (see Agriculture and Markets Law § 305 [1] [b];Matter of Karlin Farms v Board of Assessors of Town of Riverhead, 197 AD2d 32, 35[1994]). Thus, the crux of Laurel Hill's challenge is the wrongful denial of a partial taxexemption. The proper vehicle for challenging an allegedly wrongful denial of a partialexemption is a tax certiorari proceeding pursuant to RPTL article 7, and not a CPLR article 78proceeding (see Rochdale Vil. v Finance Adm'r of City of N.Y., 159 AD2d 494, 497[1990]; Stabile v Half Hollow Hills Cent. School Dist. of Huntington & Babylon, 83[*2]AD2d 945, 945-946 [1981]; see also RPTL 706 [1]).While the Supreme Court could have converted the instant CPLR article 78 proceeding into a taxcertiorari proceeding (see CPLR 103 [c]), conversion would have been improper since, atthe time the instant proceeding was commenced, a tax certiorari proceeding would have beenuntimely (see RPTL 516 [1], 702 [2]; Matter of Cathedral Fourth Dev. Corp. v Board of Assessors & AssessmentReview Commn. of County of Nassau, 25 AD3d 693, 694 [2006]). Accordingly, theSupreme Court properly denied the petition and dismissed the instant CPLR article 78proceeding as time-barred.
Laurel Hill's remaining contentions are without merit. Prudenti, P.J., Lifson, Covello andBalkin, JJ., concur.