| Matter of Aymes v Tax Commn. of the City of N.Y. |
| 2012 NY Slip Op 03727 [95 AD3d 567] |
| May 10, 2012 |
| Appellate Division, First Department |
| In the Matter of Clifford Aymes, Appellant, v TaxCommission of the City of New York et al., Respondents. |
—[*1] Michael A. Cardozo, Corporation Counsel, New York (Andrea M. Chan of counsel), forrespondents.
Order and judgment (one paper), Supreme Court, New York County (Martin Shulman, J.),entered April 28, 2011, which, to the extent appealed from as limited by the briefs, grantedrespondents' motion to dismiss the petition, and dismissed this proceeding brought pursuant toarticle 7 of the Real Property Tax Law, unanimously affirmed, without costs.
As a prerequisite to commencing a proceeding under article 7 of the Real Property Tax Lawto review an assessment of real property, petitioner was required to "show that a complaint wasmade in due time to the proper officers to correct such assessment" (RPTL 706 [2]). The courtcorrectly held that the "proper officer" in this case was respondent Tax Commission, as section153 (b) of the New York City Charter states that the Tax Commission "shall be charged with theduty of reviewing and correcting all assessments of real property" (see also NY CityCharter § 163 [f]; Matter of G.A.D. Holding Co. v City of N.Y. Dept. of Fin., RealProp. Assessment Bur., 192 AD2d 441, 442 [1993]). Given petitioner's failure to timely filea complaint with the Tax Commission, the petition was properly dismissed (Matter ofSterling Estates v Board of Assessors of County of Nassau, 66 NY2d 122, 126 [1985]). Wenote, however, that dismissal of this proceeding for failure to exhaust administrative remediesdoes [*2]not, in and of itself, bar petitioner from seekingcorrections relating to the subject property's square footage, income, and expenses, which heproperly sought in a Request for Review filed with the Department of Finance.Concur—Tom, J.P., Andrias, Catterson, Acosta and Manzanet-Daniels, JJ.