Decided January 12, 1995 Appeal from (3d Dept: 207 A.D.2d 593) MOTIONS FOR LEAVE TO APPEAL GRANTED OR DENIED
This created a substantial burden for individual residential taxpayers because "[s]uch proceedings were so complex and expensive as to be prohibitive for the owners of [residential] properties" ( Matter of Town of New Castle v Kaufmann, 72 NY2d 684, 686 [internal quotation marks omitted]). In order to alleviate this situation, the New York State Legislature enacted the SCAR statute in the RPTL "to afford `speedy and inexpensive relief' to wrongfully assessed homeowners through a simplified review procedure" ( Matter of Meola v Assessor of Town of Colonie, 207 AD2d 593, 594, quoting Matter of Town of New Castle v Kaufmann, 72 NY2d at 686). The RPTL explicitly provides that SCAR hearings should be conducted on an informal basis, that the petitioner need not present an expert witness, and the JHO is vested with the discretion to consider a wide variety of sources and information in evaluating tax assessments ( see RPTL 732; Matter of Meirowitz v Board of Assessors, 53 AD3d 549; Matter of Lauer v Board of Assessors, 51 AD3d 926; Matter of McNamara v Board of Assessors of Town of Smithtown, 272 AD2d 617; Matter of Sauer v Board of Assessors, 194 AD2d 542).
However, the determination to deny the petitioner's claim for an assessment reduction for tax year 2006/2007, on the ground that the assessment did not reflect the true market value of the property, lacked a rational basis, and was arbitrary and capricious. The petitioner submitted sales figures from six comparable properties tending to establish that the tax assessment appeared excessive or unequal within the meaning of RPTL 729 (2) or (4) ( cf. Matter of Gershon v Nassau County Assessment Review Commn., 29 AD3d at 909; Matter of Meola v Assessor of Town of Colonie, 207 AD2d 593). The Town submitted no opposition, and the hearing officer, without any stated reason, ignored the comparable properties in reaching his conclusion ( cf. Matter of Barbera v Assessor of Town of Pelham, 278 AD2d 412).
Supreme Court erred in granting that part of the petition in this CPLR article 78 proceeding for a de novo hearing with respect to petitioners' property assessments, and we conclude that the court should have dismissed the petition in its entirety. "When a Hearing Officer's determination [under title 1-A of RPTL article 7] is challenged, the court's role is limited to ascertaining whether the determination has a rational basis" ( Matter of Meola v Assessor of Town of Colonie, 207 AD2d 593, 594, lv denied 84 NY2d 812; see Matter of McNamara v Board of Assessors of Town of Smithtown, 272 AD2d 617). Petitioners failed to respond to the Board's request for further documentation pursuant to RPTL 525 (2) (a), and the Hearing Officer's determination with respect to each petitioner has a rational basis inasmuch as the record supports the determinations of the Board that petitioners' failure to comply with the request for documentation was willful ( see Matter of Gelber Enters., LLC v Williams, 41 AD3d 1207; Matter of Town of Babylon v Perry, 230 AD2d 802, 803, lv denied 89 NY2d 813).
In the absence of a recent arms-length sale of the property, the comparable sales method is the most reliable indicia of market value ( see Matter of Saratoga Harness Racing v. Williams, 91 NY2d 639, 643; Matter of Niagara Mohawk Power Corp. v. Town of Moreau Assessor, 307 AD2d 669, 670). Here, petitioners' evidence failed to sustain their burden of demonstrating that the respective assessments were excessive or unequal ( see Matter of Krzys v. Town of Clifton Park, 267 AD2d 658, 659; Matter of Meola v. Assessor of Town of Colonie, 207 AD2d 593, 594, lv denied 84 NY2d 812). Moreover, given the Hearing Officers' discretion to consider a wide variety of sources and information in evaluating assessments, we conclude that the comparable sales information relied upon by the Town Assessor provided a rational basis for the SCAR determinations. Accordingly, we conclude that Supreme Court correctly dismissed this portion of the petition.
When reviewing a hearing officer's determination of a small claims assessment review ( see RPTL 732), the court is limited to ascertaining whether there was a rational basis for the determination. The evidence, which included comparable recent sales, provided a rational basis for the hearing officer's determination that a reduction in the assessed value of the petitioner's property was not warranted. The Supreme Court correctly upheld the determination ( see Matter of Sofia v. Assessor of Town of Eastchester, 294 AD2d 509, 510; Matter of Barbera v. Assessor of Town of Pelham, 278 AD2d 412, 413; Matter of McNamara v. Board of Assessors of Town of Smithtown, 272 AD2d 617, 617-618; Matter of Meola v. Assessor of Town of Colonie, 207 AD2d 593, 594).
Notwithstanding their proximity, the 10 neighboring properties are not a sufficiently representative sample from which to determine the "average of residential property on the assessment roll," so as to properly conclude that the petitioner's property is burdened by an objectionable unequal assessment (id). Accordingly, the Judicial Hearing Officer's determination rejecting the petitioner's claims had a rational basis, and was properly upheld by the Supreme Court (see Matter of Barbera v. Assessor of Town of Pelham, 278 A.D.2d 412; Matter of Meola v. Assessor of Town of Colonie, 207 A.D.2d 593). The petitioner's remaining contentions are meritless.
The Real Property Tax Law provides that hearings held pursuant to the Small Claims Assessment Review procedure are to be conducted on an informal basis, and it vests the Judicial Hearing Officer with the discretion to consider a wide variety of sources and information in evaluating tax assessments (see, RPTL 732; Matter of McNamara v. Board of Assessors, 272 A.D.2d 617; Matter of Sauer v. Board of Assessors, 194 A.D.2d 542). When the Judicial Hearing Officer's determination is contested, the court's role is limited to ascertaining whether that determination has a rational basis (see, Matter of McNamara v. Board of Assessors, supra; Matter of Meola v. Assessor of Town of Colonie, 207 A.D.2d 593). The appellants' proof of value, which included three comparable recent sales, provided a rational basis for the determination that a reduction in the petitioner's tax assessment was not warranted.
The Real Property Tax Law provides that hearings held pursuant to the Small Claims Assessment Review procedure are to be conducted on an informal basis, and it vests the Judicial Hearing Officer with the discretion to consider a wide variety of sources and information in evaluating tax assessments ( see, RPTL 732; Matter of Sauer v. Board of Assessors, 194 A.D.2d 542). When the Judicial Hearing Officer's determinations are contested, the court is limited to ascertaining whether those determinations have a rational basis ( see, Meola v. Assessor of Town of Colonie, 207 A.D.2d 593). The appellants' proof on the values of the property owned by the petitioners Kenneth Lazovick and Karen Lazovick and of the property owned by the petitioners Hardeep Sawhney and Jaspreet Sawhney provided a rational basis for the Hearing Officer's determinations that reductions in their tax assessments were not warranted.
In its initial decision of May 19, 1998, Supreme Court noted that "petitioners failed to introduce any independent evidence of the value of the property during the proceeding before the Hearing Officer". By letter dated June 16, 1998, Supreme Court amended the decision by removing that sentence and indicating that petitioners had submitted evidence of the value of the property. In assessing whether the SCAR determination is supported by a rational basis (see, Matter of Meola v. Assessor of Town of Colonie, 207 A.D.2d 593, 594, lv denied 84 N.Y.2d 812; Matter of Bellomo v. Board of Assessment Review, Town of Mamakating, 185 A.D.2d 574, 575, lv denied 80 N.Y.2d 761), we note that it was incumbent upon petitioners to demonstrate that the assessment was excessive or unequal within the meaning of RPTL 729 (2) or (4) (see, Matter of Pace v. Assessor of Town of Islip, 252 A.D.2d 88, 90, lv denied 93 N.Y.2d 805). Clearly, "[t]he best evidence of value * * * is a recent sale of the subject property between a seller under no compulsion to sell and a buyer under no compulsion to buy" (Matter of Allied Corp. v. Town of Camillus, 80 N.Y.2d 351, 356; see, Matter of Pace v. Assessor of Town of Islip, supra, at 90). Upon such reasoning, the purchase of a property at a mortgage foreclosure auction may not always represent an arms' length transaction (compare, Waterman v. Katchuk, 129 A.D.2d 877, with Matter of Landau v. Assessor of Town of Carmel, 236 A.D.2d 403).