Opinion
March 29, 2000.
Appeal from Judgment of Supreme Court, Erie County, Mintz, J. — CPLR art 78.
PRESENT: GREEN, A. P. J., PINE, PIGOTT, JR., AND SCUDDER, JJ.
Judgment unanimously reversed on the law with costs, motion denied and petition/complaint reinstated.
Memorandum:
This combined CPLR article 78 proceeding and declaratory judgment action was commenced by, among others, appellants (petitioners/plaintiffs), who are four individuals who reside in the Town of Aurora (Town), and two entities that own nursing homes/retirement communities, one situated within the Town and one in an adjoining town. The proceeding challenges the determination of respondent/defendant Town Assessor granting a tax exemption under RPTL 420-a and 420-b with regard to property within the Town owned by respondent/defendant Presbyterian Homes of Western New York, Inc. (Homes) on which Homes is constructing a retirement community/transitional care facility and, eventually, a skilled nursing facility. The proceeding also challenges the action of respondent/defendant Town Board of the Town of Aurora (Town Board) in entering into a PILOT (Payments in Lieu of Taxes) agreement with Homes. The appeal is from a judgment granting the motion of respondents/defendants for summary judgment dismissing the petition/complaint in its entirety, presumably on the ground that petitioners/plaintiffs lack standing to challenge the granting of a real property tax exemption to another taxpayer.
Taxpayers in a community have standing to challenge a determination that a property within the community's borders is exempted from the tax rolls ( see, Matter of Colella v. Board of Assessors , 266 A.D.2d 286 [decided Nov. 8, 1999]; Fallica v. Town of Brookhaven , 69 A.D.2d 579, mod on other grounds 52 N.Y.2d 794 ; Matter of Dubbs v. Board of Assessment Review , 46 A.D.2d 651 ; see also, People ex rel. Hoesterey , 210 App. Div. 196, 199-201, revd on other grounds 239 N.Y. 626 ). "The decrease in the tax base that occurs when a property is improperly exempted from taxation has been found to constitute a cognizable injury to such taxpayers" ( Matter of Colella v. Board of Assessors, supra). Such a result is consistent with the "more recent trend of liberalizing the ability of taxpayers to challenge governmental action" ( Matter of Dudley v. Kerwick , 52 N.Y.2d 542, 551 , rearg denied 54 N.Y.2d 626). Thus, the court erred when it concluded that petitioners/plaintiffs did not have standing to challenge the tax exemption granted to Homes. Therefore, the judgment is reversed, respondents/defendants' motion is denied and the petition/complaint is reinstated.