 |
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| | | |
|
|
|
|
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
1
.
OPINION
|
EXTRACTED KEY WORDS
ASSESSMENT ROLL REVIEW PETITIONER STATUTE PUBLICATION TAX MEMORANDUM DETERMINATION PROCEEDING LAW FAILURE LIMITATIONS PERIOD RPTL TAXPAYER JUDGE APPELLATE DIVISION RESPONDENT REAL PROPERTY TENTATIVE ASSESSMENT TAX BILL COMPLAINANT ADVENTIST HOME LIVINGSTON COSTS GRIEVANCE TAX BILL REFLECTING CONTENTION STATUTORY LANGUAGE JUDICIAL REVIEW |
IN THE MATTER OF ADVENTIST HOME, INC. v. BOARD OF ASSESSORS OF THE TOWN OF
LIVINGSTON, ET AL.,
83 N.Y.2d 878, 634 N.E.2d 972, 612 N.Y.S.2d 371 (1994).
May 3, 1994
3 No. 57 (1994 NY Int. 072)
Decided May 3, 1994
_________________________________________________________________
This memorandum is uncorrected and subject to revision before
publication in the New York Reports.
MEMORANDUM:
The order of the Appellate Division should be affirmed, with costs.
In early 1990, respondent Board of Assessors of the Town of Livingston
determined that a portion of the real property of petitioner Adventist
Home, Inc., previously untaxed, no longer qualified for a charitable
exemption under Real Property Tax Law § 420-a. Accordingly, the Board
included the property on the 1990 tentative assessment rolls and
imposed an assessed value of $62,700. Petitioner filed a timely
grievance challenging the Board's action but the Board failed to
change the assessment. The Town's assessment roll became final on July
1, 1990. In December 1990, petitioner received a tax bill reflecting
the new assessment.
Some five months later, in May 1991, petitioner instituted this
combined article 78 proceeding and declaratory judgment action seeking
review of respondent's decision denying tax-exempt status to the
property. Supreme Court held the claim time-barred under CPLR 217 for
failure to commence the proceeding within four months of either the
publication of the assessment roll or petitioner's receipt of a tax
bill reflecting the adverse assessment, and the Appellate Division
affirmed.
We conclude that petitioner failed to timely commence this proceeding
because it was not brought within four months of receipt of the tax
bill in December 1990, the point at which petitioner had actual notice
of the Board's determination. We reject respondent's contention that
the four-month statute of limitations began to run in July 1990, upon
publication of the assessment roll, as that conclusion ignores the
explicit statutory requirement of RPTL 525(4) that the Board provide
written notice of the determination and the taxpayer's right to
challenge it. The statutory language is plain:
SNIPPETS:
|
|
|
| | | |
|
|
