COLISEUM HOTEL ASSOCIATES, RESPONDENT, v. UNIONDALE UNION FREE SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 2, RESPONDENT, THE BOARD OF ASSESSORS OF THE COUNTY OF NASSAU ET AL., APPELLANTS.
IN THE MATTER OF CORPORATE PROPERTY INVESTORS ET AL., RESPONDENTS, v. UNIONDALE UNION FREE SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 2, RESPONDENT, THE BOARD OF ASSESSORS OF THE COUNTY OF NASSAU, APPELLANT.
IN THE MATTER OF COLISEUM TOWERS ASSOCIATES, RESPONDENT, v. ROBERT D. LIVINGSTON, &C., RESPONDENT, THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF THE COUNTY OF NASSAU, ET AL., APPELLANTS, BOARD OF EDUCATION, UNIONDALE UNION FREE SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 2, RESPONDENT.
IN THE MATTER OF EQUITABLE LIFE ASSURANCE SOCIETY OF THE UNITED STATES, RESPONDENT, v. BOARD OF ASSESSORS ET AL., APPELLANTS, VALLEY STREAM UNION FREE SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 30, RESPONDENT.
CORPORATE PROPERTY INVESTORS, ET AL., RESPONDENTS, v. BOARD OF ASSESSORS OF THE COUNTY OF NASSAU ET AL., APPELLANTS, GARDEN CITY UNION FREE SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 18, ET AL., RESPONDENTS.
IN THE MATTER OF JERICHO PROPERTIES NO. 1, RESPONDENT, v. GARY MUSIELLO, &C.,RESPONDENT, THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF THE COUNTY OF NASSAU, ET AL., APPELLANTS, BOARD OF EDUCATION, JERICHO UNION FREE SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 15, RESPONDENT.
IN THE MATTER OF JERICHO QUADRANGLE ONE COMPANY, RESPONDENT, v. GARY MUSIELLO, &C.,RESPONDENT, THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF THE COUNTY OF NASSAU, ET AL., APPELLANTS, BOARD OF EDUCATION, JERICHO UNION FREE SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 15, RESPONDENT.
RECKSON ASSOCIATES, RESPONDENT, v. UNIONDALE UNION FREE SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 2. RESPONDENT, BOARD OF ASSESSORS OF THE COUNTY OF NASSAU ET AL., APPELLANTS.
IN THE MATTER OF JERICHO-WESTBURY INDOOR TENNIS, INC., RESPONDENT, v. BOARD OF ASSESSORS ET AL., APPELLANTS, JERICHO UNION FREE SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 15, PROPOSED RESPONDENT.
Nos. 202, 203, 206, 207 and 208:
Leslie Gordon Fagen, for Appellants.
Peter J. Mastaglio, for Respondent school district.
Donald F. Leistman, for Respondent.
Nos. 209 and 210:
Leslie Gordon Fagen, for Appellants.
Peter J. Mastaglio, for Respondent school district.
Dolores Fredrich, for Respondent petitioner.
Nos. 204 and 205:
Leslie Gordon Fagen, for Appellants.
Peter J. Mastaglio, for Respondent school district.
Donald F. Leistman, for Respondents.
No. 211:
Leslie Gordon Fagen, for Appellants.
Peter J. Mastaglio, for Respondent school district.
Submitted by Steven Van R. Ulman, for Respondent petitioner.
MEMORANDUM:
In each matter, the judgment of Supreme Court and the order of the Appellate Division brought up for review should be affirmed, with costs.
In their present posture, these appeals present only one issue for the Court's resolution: whether the respondent County is liable for tax refunds to plaintiffs and petitioners.[n 1]
The issue arises because of a prior disagreement between the County and several school districts within the County over the school district's power to "opt out" of a tax exemption scheme permitted by Real Property Tax Law § 485-b. Over the County's objection, the school boards insisted they had the right to opt out. The Appellate Division sustained the school districts' contention and subsequently ordered the County to remove the partial exemptions of the litigating taxpayers from the tax assessment rolls (see, Matter of Walker v Board of Assessors of the County of Nassau, 103 AD2d 580). On appeal, this Court reversed, holding that the school districts had no authority to opt out of the exemptions (see, Matter of Walker, 66 NY2d 702, revg 103 AD2d 580, supra). Consequently, the exemptions had been improperly removed, and the present petitioners and plaintiffs, affected taxpayers, commenced these actions seeking refunds for the taxes they had paid during the years in which their exemptions were wrongfully denied.
Section 6-26.0[b] of the Nassau County Administrative Code, the relevant statute, provides:
"(c) Notwithstanding any provisions of this chapter or any other general or special law to the contrary, any deficiency existing or arising from a decrease in an assessment or tax under subdivisions one, four and seven of section 6-24.0, or sections 6-12.0 or 5-72.0 of the code, or by reason of exemptions or reductions of assessments shall be a county charge)" [emphasis added].
The statute's unambiguous language requires that the County be held liable for the tax refunds inasmuch as "deficienc[ies] existing or arising ... by reason of exemptions ... shall be a county charge." The result is consistent with the statutory taxing scheme existing in Nassau County. The County Board of Assessors exclusively prepares the assessment rolls for state, county, town, special district and school taxes and, consistent with these responsibilities, the Legislature imposed responsibility for all taxing errors emanating from these assessment rolls solely upon the County (see, Assembly Memorandum in Support of Bill, Bill Jacket, L 1948, ch 851, at 8-9). The County, therefore, should bear the burden of paying to the litigating taxpayers the refunds necessitated by the erroneous removal of their exemptions from the tax rolls.
F O O T N O T E 1. A review of the lengthy history of these cases is set forth in Corporate Property Investors v Board of Assessors (153 AD2d 656).[return to text]
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
In Each Case: Judgment of Supreme Court and order of the Appellate Division brought up for review affirmed, with costs, in a memorandum. Chief Judge Wachtler and Judges Simons, Kaye, Titone, Hancock and Bellacosa concur. Judge Smith took no part.