In the Matter of Mountain Meadows Campers Association, Inc., Appellant, v.
Ronald A. Pilkington, et al., Respondents.
86 N.Y.2d 849, 657 N.E.2d 495, 633 N.Y.S.2d 474
October 19, 1995
4 No. 208 (1995 NY Int. 209)
Decided October 19, 1995
_________________________________________________________________
This memorandum is uncorrected and subject to revision before
publication in the New York Reports.
Edward J. Markarian, for Appellant.
Karla M. Corpus, for Respondents.
MEMORANDUM:
The order of the Appellate Division should be affirmed, with costs.
Petitioner is the owner of 15 parcels of land in Holland, New York
which have been developed as a recreational park containing small
lakes, campsites, hiking trails, playgrounds, roadways and other
facilities. The deed to each campsite contains an easement entitling
the owner to use the common areas and facilities. The membership of
the Association consists of all parties owning campsites in the park.
The Association sought a reduction in the assessment of its real
property for the tax year 1992. It claimed that its property is of
only nominal value because burdened by easements in favor of the
individual campsite owners. Moreover, it asserted that those owners'
assessments had been increased to reflect the value of the owners'
rights in the common areas and that by assessing the Association
property at full value, the respondents have engaged in double
taxation. It sought relief under the rule stated in People ex rel.
Poor v O'Donnel (139 App Div 83, affd 200 NY 518).
Before trial the Association and respondents stipulated that
petitioner's land unencumbered had a value of $130,500 (the present
assessment) but that if the restrictions of record left the 15 parcels
with only nominal value, the market value of the property was $10 per
parcel. This was the only evidence of the value of the Association
property submitted. There was no evidence of enhanced assessments to
the individual campsites because of the easements. The issue before
the court was whether full value or nominal value should be used to
assess the Association's property.
SNIPPETS:
This memorandum is uncorrected and subject to revision before publication in the New York
Edward J. Markarian, for Appellant.
Karla M. Corpus, for Respondents.
The order of the Appellate Division should be affirmed, with costs.
Petitioner is the owner of 15 parcels of land in Holland, New York which have been developed
It claimed that its property is of only nominal value because burdened by easements in favor
Moreover, it asserted that those owners' assessments had been increased to reflect the value
It sought relief under the rule stated in People ex rel. Poor v O'Donnel (139 App Div 83,
Before trial the Association and respondents stipulated that petitioner's land unencumbered
There was no evidence of enhanced assessments to the individual campsites because of the
The issue before the court was whether full value or nominal value should be used to assess
The court concluded that the property had more than nominal value, the encumbrances
Confronted with a choice of either $130,500 or $10 per parcel and no evidence from which it
Nevertheless, the court found certain interests retained by the Association and its findings
Chief Judge Kaye and Judges Simons, Titone, Bellacosa, Smith, Levine and Ciparick concur.
|
