| Matter of Town of Stony Point v State of N.Y. Dept. of Fin.,Off. of Real Prop. Servs. |
| 2013 NY Slip Op 04407 [107 AD3d 1217] |
| June 13, 2013 |
| Appellate Division, Third Department |
| In the Matter of Town of Stony Point et al., Appellants, vState of New York Department of Finance, Office of Real Property Services, et al.,Respondents. |
—[*1] Eric T. Schneiderman, Attorney General, Albany (Robert M. Goldfarb of counsel),for respondents.
Peters, P.J. Appeal from a judgment of the Supreme Court (Ceresia Jr., J.), enteredApril 25, 2012 in Albany County, which, in a combined proceeding pursuant to CPLRarticle 78 and action for declaratory judgment, granted respondents' motion to dismiss thepetition.
The North Rockland Central School District in Rockland County contains all of theTown of Stony Point and a portion of the Town of Haverstraw. For school districts thatencompass part or all of several municipalities, "the district superintendent mustdetermine the full valuation of the real property of each part of a city or town included inthe school district by dividing the taxable assessed valuation of the real property in thatpart of the city or town by the State equalization rate established for the entire city ortown" (Matter of City of Oswego v New York State Bd. of Real Prop. Servs.,280 AD2d 99, 100 [2001], lv denied 96 NY2d 711 [2001]; see RPTL1314 [1] [a]). Respondent Commissioner of Taxation and Finance, however, isauthorized to allow the use of a special equalization rate if "a portion of a city or town iscontained within a school district and the ratio of assessed value to full value of theproperties contained in that portion is for some reason at variance with the Stateequalization rate for the entire municipality" (Matter of City of Oswego v New YorkState Bd. of Real Prop. Servs., 280 AD2d at 102; see RPTL 1314 [2]).[*2]
Petitioner Town of Stony Point applied to theCommissioner for the establishment of a special equalization rate for the portion of theTown of Haverstraw lying within the district. A subsequent analysis by respondentOffice of Real Property Tax Services recommended that the Commissioner deny theapplication, citing the lack of "a 10 percent change in the share of the levy of at least onesegment of the taxing jurisdiction as the result of the use of the segment specialequalization rate" instead of the State equalization rate (9 NYCRR former 186-5.5[a]).[FN*] The Commissioner agreed, prompting petitioners to commence this combined CPLRarticle 78 proceeding and declaratory judgment action. Respondents moved to dismissand argued, among other things, that certain portions of the proceeding were time-barredand that Supreme Court lacked subject matter jurisdiction to consider the remainder.Supreme Court granted the motion, and petitioners appeal.
We affirm. Petitioners' constitutional and statutory challenges to the validity of 9NYCRR former 186-5.5 are attacks upon "a quasi-legislative act or decision made by anadministrative agency" that are properly advanced in a CPLR article 78 proceeding (Matter of Capital Dist. RegionalOff-Track Betting Corp. v New York State Racing & Wagering Bd., 97 AD3d1044, 1045 [2012]; seeWalton v New York State Dept. of Correctional Servs., 8 NY3d 186, 194[2007]; Via Health Home Care,Inc. v New York State Dept. of Health, 33 AD3d 1100, 1101 [2006]). They areaccordingly subject to a four-month statute of limitations and, inasmuch as the regulationwas last amended seven years prior to the commencement of this proceeding, SupremeCourt properly dismissed them as time-barred (see CPLR 217 [1]; Via HealthHome Care, Inc. v New York State Dept. of Health, 33 AD3d at 1101-1102).
We also agree with Supreme Court's conclusion that it lacked subject matterjurisdiction to consider petitioners' contentions regarding the rejection of theirapplication for the establishment of a special equalization rate. A CPLR article 78proceeding challenging that determination must "be instituted in the Appellate Division,and if commenced in the wrong court, it is properly dismissed" (Matter of Feiner v New York StateOff. of Real Prop. Servs., 25 AD3d 1005, 1006 [2006], lv denied 6NY3d 712 [2006]; see RPTL 1218; Matter of Town of Riverhead v New York State Bd. of Real Prop.Servs., 5 NY3d 36, 42 [2005]). Petitioners' remaining arguments, to the extentthat they have not been rendered academic in light of the foregoing, have been examinedand rejected.
Rose, McCarthy and Egan Jr., JJ., concur. Ordered that the judgment is affirmed,without costs.
Footnote *: Subsequent to thecommencement of this proceeding, the regulation was recodified at 20 NYCRR8186-5.5.