Case in Point
Wed, 28 Oct 2009 14:07:00
A Day To End The “No Date” Exception
Garth v. Town of Richmond
Decided by: Court of Appeals, Oct. 15
New York’s top jurists this month eliminated a technicality that municipalities have used for decades to stop taxpayers from challenging property assessments.
In 2006, Leonid Garth disputed the Town of Richmond’s tax on his real estate property. One portion of the form asked Garth to fill in a date and time that a judge would hear his claim. However, because of a judicial vacancy in Richmond, the county clerk told Garth he could not schedule the hearing yet and Garth should just “leave the date blank.” He did—a decision that rewarded him with three years in court.
At his first hearing, Richmond’s Board of Assessment asked the judge to dismiss Garth’s claim because of the blank date. The trial court denied this, but the Appellate Division reversed, holding that the failure to write in the date rendered Garth’s claim “jurisdictionally defective.” Indeed, there are numerous reported cases over the past 30 years in which New Yorkers have had their tax challenges dismissed for “no date.”
Calling the Appellate Court’s decision “unduly harsh and contrary to historically liberal” rules for tax proceedings, the Court of Appeals sided with Garth. The court held that, from now on, the failure to write in the date does not render tax petitions invalid. The ruling was based on the “longstanding view” that “the taxpayer’s right to have his assessment reviewed should be defeated by a technicality.”
In a nod to common sense, Chief Judge Lippman said, “We are hard-pressed to see how the assessing authority will suffer any prejudice as a result of the failure to include a return date.”
Furnishing Deceit
Caspian Realty v. Town of Greenburgh Zoning Board
Decided by: Appellate Division, Second Dept., Sept. 29
In 2000, Caspian Realty wanted to build a two-level furniture store in the town of Greenburgh. It applied for building permits, submitting drawings of a 6,200-foot showroom with a storage cellar.
Because the cellar was not for retail space, Caspian had to build only 33 (as opposed to 62) parking spaces. During the construction, building inspectors observed Caspian finishing the cellar and adding showroom-like components such as carpeting and moldings.
Suspicions were confirmed when the store opened with two floors of showroom.
The town filed zoning charges against Caspian, which promptly applied for a zoning variance to exempt the now-constructed store and small parking lot. The town’s zoning board denied the application and found that the use of the cellar unduly burdened neighboring property. The board also cited Caspian’s prior deceitful statements in its denial.
Caspian appealed to the courts, claiming that “deceit” was not a factor the town could legally consider. The Appellate Division disagreed and found that municipalities may go beyond the enumerated statutory factors when considering variance applications—namely, boards may consider prior deceit. The judges said that deceit alone was insufficient to deny an application, but the factor could be part of the framework.
Aiming To Change The Change Requirements On Grand Island Bridge
Selevan v. New York Thruway Authority
Decided by: United States Court of Appeals, Oct. 15
The Grand Island Bridge spans the Niagara River, halfway between Niagara Falls and Buffalo. A toll bridge maintained by the New York Thruway Authority, it costs 75 cents to cross. But for a select few—residents of Grand Island—the toll can be as low as 9 cents.
Evidently short on quarters, Nassau County resident Robert Selevan and Ontario resident Anne Rubin filed a class action lawsuit in 2006 challenging the disparate rates. They alleged that the Thruway Authority was violating their constitutional rights and that the fee impeded interstate commerce.
After a district judge in Buffalo held that the lawsuit lacked all merit, the plaintiffs appealed. Reversing the district court, the federal appeals court in Manhattan ruled that the Thruway’s activities, if true, would be illegal.
In ruling that the toll “could” violate the Commerce Clause, the appeals court asked the district judge to consider if this was the type of law “whose object is local economic protectionism” that tends to “excite jealousies” between locals and non-residents. The court instructed the district judge to weigh the toll’s “legitimate local public interest” with the harm experienced by the millions of non-locals who travel the road.
Further, the Court said the differential toll could violate the right to travel protected by the Constitution.
Grand Island motorists can take comfort for the time being—the appeals court merely sent the case back to Buffalo to proceed through the long process of federal litigation. Still, the meddling of the federal court on a wholly intrastate activity should raise some eyebrows for the state’s decision makers.
Garth v. Town of Richmond
Decided by: Court of Appeals, Oct. 15
New York’s top jurists this month eliminated a technicality that municipalities have used for decades to stop taxpayers from challenging property assessments.
In 2006, Leonid Garth disputed the Town of Richmond’s tax on his real estate property. One portion of the form asked Garth to fill in a date and time that a judge would hear his claim. However, because of a judicial vacancy in Richmond, the county clerk told Garth he could not schedule the hearing yet and Garth should just “leave the date blank.” He did—a decision that rewarded him with three years in court.
At his first hearing, Richmond’s Board of Assessment asked the judge to dismiss Garth’s claim because of the blank date. The trial court denied this, but the Appellate Division reversed, holding that the failure to write in the date rendered Garth’s claim “jurisdictionally defective.” Indeed, there are numerous reported cases over the past 30 years in which New Yorkers have had their tax challenges dismissed for “no date.”
Calling the Appellate Court’s decision “unduly harsh and contrary to historically liberal” rules for tax proceedings, the Court of Appeals sided with Garth. The court held that, from now on, the failure to write in the date does not render tax petitions invalid. The ruling was based on the “longstanding view” that “the taxpayer’s right to have his assessment reviewed should be defeated by a technicality.”
In a nod to common sense, Chief Judge Lippman said, “We are hard-pressed to see how the assessing authority will suffer any prejudice as a result of the failure to include a return date.”
Furnishing Deceit
Caspian Realty v. Town of Greenburgh Zoning Board
Decided by: Appellate Division, Second Dept., Sept. 29
In 2000, Caspian Realty wanted to build a two-level furniture store in the town of Greenburgh. It applied for building permits, submitting drawings of a 6,200-foot showroom with a storage cellar.
Because the cellar was not for retail space, Caspian had to build only 33 (as opposed to 62) parking spaces. During the construction, building inspectors observed Caspian finishing the cellar and adding showroom-like components such as carpeting and moldings.
Suspicions were confirmed when the store opened with two floors of showroom.
The town filed zoning charges against Caspian, which promptly applied for a zoning variance to exempt the now-constructed store and small parking lot. The town’s zoning board denied the application and found that the use of the cellar unduly burdened neighboring property. The board also cited Caspian’s prior deceitful statements in its denial.
Caspian appealed to the courts, claiming that “deceit” was not a factor the town could legally consider. The Appellate Division disagreed and found that municipalities may go beyond the enumerated statutory factors when considering variance applications—namely, boards may consider prior deceit. The judges said that deceit alone was insufficient to deny an application, but the factor could be part of the framework.
Aiming To Change The Change Requirements On Grand Island Bridge
Selevan v. New York Thruway Authority
Decided by: United States Court of Appeals, Oct. 15
The Grand Island Bridge spans the Niagara River, halfway between Niagara Falls and Buffalo. A toll bridge maintained by the New York Thruway Authority, it costs 75 cents to cross. But for a select few—residents of Grand Island—the toll can be as low as 9 cents.
Evidently short on quarters, Nassau County resident Robert Selevan and Ontario resident Anne Rubin filed a class action lawsuit in 2006 challenging the disparate rates. They alleged that the Thruway Authority was violating their constitutional rights and that the fee impeded interstate commerce.
After a district judge in Buffalo held that the lawsuit lacked all merit, the plaintiffs appealed. Reversing the district court, the federal appeals court in Manhattan ruled that the Thruway’s activities, if true, would be illegal.
In ruling that the toll “could” violate the Commerce Clause, the appeals court asked the district judge to consider if this was the type of law “whose object is local economic protectionism” that tends to “excite jealousies” between locals and non-residents. The court instructed the district judge to weigh the toll’s “legitimate local public interest” with the harm experienced by the millions of non-locals who travel the road.
Further, the Court said the differential toll could violate the right to travel protected by the Constitution.
Grand Island motorists can take comfort for the time being—the appeals court merely sent the case back to Buffalo to proceed through the long process of federal litigation. Still, the meddling of the federal court on a wholly intrastate activity should raise some eyebrows for the state’s decision makers.
