| Matter of Lauer v Board of Assessors |
| 2008 NY Slip Op 04702 [51 AD3d 926] |
| May 20, 2008 |
| Appellate Division, Second Department |
| In the Matter of Eliot Lauer, Petitioner, v Board ofAssessors et al., Respondents. |
—[*1] Lorna B. Goodman, County Attorney, Mineola, N.Y. (Dennis J. Saffran of counsel), forrespondents.
Proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78 to review a determination of a hearing officer datedMarch 14, 2006, which denied the petitioner's small claims assessment review applicationpursuant to Real Property Tax Law article 7 to reduce the tax assessment of his real property.
Adjudged that the determination is confirmed, the petition is denied, and the proceeding isdismissed on the merits, with costs.
Initially, we note that since this determination was not made after a quasi-judicial evidentiaryhearing, it was improperly transferred to this Court on the issue of substantial evidence (seeCPLR 7803 [4]; 7804 [g]; Matter of Scherbyn v Wayne-Finger Lakes Bd. of Coop. Educ.Servs., 77 NY2d 753, 757-758 [1991]; cf. Matter of Halperin v City of New Rochelle, 24 AD3d 768,769-770 [2005]). Nonetheless, we will decide the case on the merits in the interest of judicialeconomy (see Matter of 125 Bar Corp. v State Liq. Auth. of State of N.Y., 24 NY2d 174,180 [1969]; Matter of Coleman v Townof Eastchester, 39 AD3d 855, 856 [2007]; Matter of Halperin v City of New Rochelle, 24 AD3d 768, 772-773[2005]; Matter of Country Glen Assoc. v Newburger, 305 AD2d 594, 595 [2003]).
The Real Property Tax Law provides that hearings held pursuant to the small claimsassessment review procedure are to be conducted on an informal basis, and it vests the JudicialHearing Officer with the discretion to consider a wide variety of sources and information inevaluating tax assessments (see RPTL 732 [2]; Matter of McNamara v Board ofAssessors of Town [*2]of Smithtown, 272 AD2d 617 [2000];Matter of Sauer v Board of Assessors, 194 AD2d 542 [1993]). When the Judicial HearingOfficer's determinations are contested, the court is limited to ascertaining whether thosedeterminations have a rational basis (seeMatter of Gershon v Nassau County Assessment Review Commn., 29 AD3d 909[2006]; Matter of Barbera v Assessor of Town of Pelham, 278 AD2d 412, 413 [2000];Matter of McNamara v Board of Assessors of Town of Smithtown, 272 AD2d 617[2000]).
In the instant case, the hearing officer's determination that the petitioner failed to meet hisburden of presenting credible and substantial evidence of excessive assessment had a rationalbasis (see RPTL 732 [2]; Matterof Montgomery v Board of Assessment Review of Town of Union, 30 AD3d 747, 749[2006]). Furthermore, the respondent's proof of value, which included comparable recent sales,provided a rational basis for the determination that no reduction in the petitioner's tax assessmentwas warranted (see Matter of Barbera v Assessor of Town of Pelham, 278 AD2d at 413).Spolzino, J.P., Carni, Dickerson and Eng, JJ., concur.