Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Official citation and/or docket number and footnotes (if any) for this case available with purchase.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Jo-Be Properties, LLC v. Board of Assessors

SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK APPELLATE DIVISION SECOND JUDICIAL DEPARTMENT


January 26, 2010

IN THE MATTER OF JO-BE PROPERTIES, LLC, RESPONDENT,
v.
BOARD OF ASSESSORS, ET AL., APPELLANTS.

In five related proceedings pursuant to Real Property Tax Law article 7 to review real property tax assessments for the tax years 2003/2004 through 2007/2008, the Board of Assessors and the Assessment Review Commission of the County of Nassau appeal from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Nassau County (Bucaria, J.), entered April 4, 2008, which, after a non-jury trial, inter alia, directed that the petitioner's property tax assessments for each of the tax years in question be reduced.

Published by New York State Law Reporting Bureau pursuant to Judiciary Law § 431.

This opinion is uncorrected and subject to revision before publication in the Official Reports.

STEVEN W. FISHER, J.P., DANIEL D. ANGIOLILLO, THOMAS A. DICKERSON and JOHN M. LEVENTHAL, JJ.

(Index No. 403882/05)

DECISION & ORDER

ORDERED that the judgment is affirmed, with costs.

A review of the appraisal report prepared by the petitioner's appraiser reveals that it complied with 22 NYCRR 202.59(g)(2), as it contained a statement of the method of appraisal relied on, the conclusion as to value reached by the appraiser, and the facts, figures, and calculations by which that conclusion was reached (see Matter of Federated Dept. Stores [Val. Stream] v Board of Assessors of County of Nassau, 299 AD2d 409, 410; Matter of Lakr Assoc. v Board of Assessors for City of Poughkeepsie, 235 AD2d 423). Further, at trial, the petitioner met its initial burden of coming forward with substantial credible evidence of the invalidity of the assessments, and we perceive no basis to disturb the Supreme Court's determination that the petitioner established by a preponderance of the evidence that its property was overvalued in each of the tax years in question (see Matter of FMC Corp. [Peroxygen Chems. Div.] v Unmack, 92 NY2d 179, 188).

FISHER, J.P., ANGIOLILLO, DICKERSON and LEVENTHAL, JJ., concur.

20100126

© 1992-2010 VersusLaw Inc.



Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Official citation and/or docket number and footnotes (if any) for this case available with purchase.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.