Matter of Yeung v Assessor of the Village of Great Neck Estates
Attorneys and Parties
Brief Summary
Whether homeowners may, in a small claims assessment review (SCAR) proceeding, challenge or impeach the Residential Assessment Ratio (RAR) issued by the Office of Real Property Tax Services (ORPTS), or whether Real Property Tax Law (RPTL) 1218 [judicial review of state equalization rates limited to municipalities] bars such challenges.
The Supreme Court (Nassau County) affirmed the hearing officer’s refusals to consider petitioners’ ratio study and held that taxpayers lack standing to challenge the RAR in SCAR, relying on RPTL 1218, and dismissed the Article 78 petition under CPLR 3211(a) [grounds for dismissal, including lack of standing or failure to state a claim] and CPLR 7804(f) [pre-answer motion to dismiss an Article 78 proceeding].
The Appellate Division reversed, denied the respondents’ cross-motion to dismiss, granted the Article 78 petition, annulled the July 15, 2022 SCAR denials, and remitted for further proceedings.
RPTL 1218 governs municipal challenges to state equalization rates and operates independently of SCAR; it does not bar a homeowner from impeaching the RAR within a SCAR case. RPTL 732(2) [SCAR evidentiary rule permitting the "best evidence" and directing proceedings to do substantial justice] allows homeowners to submit their own ratio studies. The hearing officer’s refusal to consider petitioners’ ratio study and standing was an error of law and arbitrary and capricious.
Background
Twenty-one Village of Great Neck Estates homeowners filed 14 SCAR petitions challenging their 2021–2022 assessments as excessive and unequal under RPTL 730 [streamlined residential assessment review procedure]. At hearings in June 2022, petitioners presented a ratio study indicating an RAR of 94.83% versus the ORPTS RAR of 100%. The hearing officer denied all applications, concluding taxpayers lack standing to challenge equalization metrics, relying on Matter of Fair Assessment and RPTL 1218. Petitioners then commenced a Civil Practice Law and Rules (CPLR) article 78 [proceeding to challenge administrative action] to annul the determinations.
Lower Court Decision
The Supreme Court granted respondents’ CPLR 3211(a) and 7804(f) motion to dismiss, denied the Article 78 petition, and dismissed the proceeding. It held that, under RPTL 1218 [judicial review of state equalization rates limited to municipalities], individual taxpayers cannot directly or collaterally challenge the RAR in SCAR, and it found a rational basis for the hearing officer’s use of the 1.0 RAR.
Appellate Division Reversal
Reversing, the court held that RPTL 1218 does not control SCAR proceedings and does not strip homeowners of standing to impeach the RAR there. Under RPTL 732(2), a SCAR hearing officer must consider the "best evidence," which may include a taxpayer’s ratio study proposing an alternative RAR. The hearing officer’s refusal to consider petitioners’ ratio study based on a perceived lack of standing was contrary to law and arbitrary and capricious. The court distinguished Matter of Fair Assessment (which involved a countywide challenge under RPTL 1218) from this case-specific SCAR use of an alternative ratio. The order and judgment were reversed, respondents’ motion to dismiss denied, the petition granted, the July 15, 2022 determinations annulled, and the matters remitted; the hearing officer may order a de novo hearing.
Legal Significance
Clarifies that homeowners may challenge or impeach the RAR within a SCAR proceeding and that RPTL 1218 does not bar such challenges. Confirms that SCAR’s flexible evidentiary framework (RPTL 732(2)) requires consideration of a taxpayer’s ratio study and ensures access to an effective unequal assessment remedy without resort to formal tax certiorari.
In SCAR, homeowners can submit and rely on their own ratio studies to contest the RAR; RPTL 1218 does not preclude such case-specific challenges, and hearing officers must consider that evidence to do substantial justice.