| Parisi v Town of Southampton, N.Y. |
| 2008 NY Slip Op 06552 [54 AD3d 320] |
| August 5, 2008 |
| Appellate Division, Second Department |
| Guy T. Parisi et al., Appellants, v Town of Southampton,New York, Respondent. |
—[*1] Berkman, Henoch, Peterson & Peddy, P.C., Garden City, N.Y. (Joseph E. Macy of counsel),for respondent.
In an action, inter alia, for a judgment declaring that the final assessment roll of the Town ofSouthampton for the tax year 2006-2007 is invalid, the plaintiffs appeal, as limited by their noticeof appeal and brief, from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Suffolk County (Pines, J.),dated January 23, 2007, as granted that branch of the defendant's motion which was pursuant toCPLR 3211 (a) (7), in effect, to dismiss the second amended complaint for failure to state a causeof action.
Ordered that the order is affirmed insofar as appealed from, with costs.
The Supreme Court correctly granted that branch of the defendant's motion which waspursuant to CPLR 3211 (a) (7), in effect, to dismiss the second amended complaint for failure tostate a cause of action. The plaintiffs claim that the defendant violated Real Property Tax Law§ 102 (12-a) when it conducted an update of the assessments of the properties in the Townof Southampton, by failing to systematically review the assessments of the Town's commercialproperties. This claim is without merit. Real Property Tax Law § 102 (12-a) merely definesthe terms "reassessment," "revaluation," and "update" (see Matter of Malta Town Ctr. I, Ltd. v Town of Malta Bd. of AssessmentReview, 3 NY3d 563, 570 [2004]; Mem in Support, Bill Jacket, L 1998, ch 319). It doesnot impose any requirements or mandates on a municipality's assessor.
Furthermore, in determining that the values of the commercial properties had notappreciated, [*2]the defendant examined and evaluated thepetitions pursuant to article 7 of the Real Property Tax Law by the owners of commercialproperties. This constituted the "systematic review" contained in the definition of "reassessment,""revaluation," and "update" set forth in Real Property Tax Law § 102 (12-a). In conductinga revaluation or update, a municipality's assessor need not reinspect and/or reappraise all of theproperties in the municipality (see Matter of Malta Town Ctr. I, Ltd. v Town of Malta Bd. ofAssessment Review, 3 NY3d at 570, n 6). In the case at bar, the Town complied with RealProperty Tax Law § 305 (2), which mandates that all real property in an assessing unit beassessed at a uniform percentage of value, because the residential properties appreciated in value,while the commercial properties did not (see Matter of Mundinger v Assessor of City of Rye,187 AD2d 594, 595 [1992]).
Moreover, we reject the plaintiffs' claim that in conducting an update, the Town was requiredto undertake a systematic review, by, in effect, reappraising all of the assessments of all of theproperties located in the Town. Such a requirement would likely result in an undueadministrative and financial burden on municipalities, which could create a disincentive formunicipalities to conduct updates of assessments and reassessments. This would constitute anunreasonable result (see Matter of FoodParade, Inc. v Office of Consumer Affairs of County of Nassau, 19 AD3d 593, 595[2005], affd 7 NY3d 568; Matter of ATM One v Landaverde, 307 AD2d 922,925 [2003], affd 2 NY3d 472; McKinney's Cons Laws of NY, Book 1, Statutes§§ 141, 143, 145, 146, 148). Thus, we find the plaintiffs' claim to be without merit,as the construction of Real Property Tax Law § 102 (12-a) that tends to avoid such anunreasonable result should be adopted (see Matter of Food Parade, Inc. v Office of ConsumerAffairs of County of Nassau, 19 AD3d at 595).
The parties' remaining contentions either are without merit or need not be addressed in lightof our determination. Rivera, J.P., Miller, Covello and Belen, JJ., concur. [See 14 Misc3d 1220(A), 2007 NY Slip Op 50098(U).]