Shubert Organization, Inc. v. Tax CommissionShubert Organization, Inc. v. Tax Commission
OPINION OF THE COURT
In a proceeding to review tax assessments on real property, the total assessment only may be reviewed. Tо assist in this process factual findings may be made separately as to the value of the land and the value of imprоvements. Either value may be below, above or equal to the corresponding figure assigned by the board of assessors. The total assessment determined by the courts cannot, however, exceed the total assessment on the tax roll.
The premises at 1634-42 Broadway in Manhattan, known as the Winter Garden Theatre, were assessed as follows:
Year Land Building Total
1973- 1974 $3,050,000 $275,000 $3,325,000
1974- 1975 3,050,000 300,000 3,350,000
through
1978-1979
In this action to review these tax assessments, after trial Supreme Court fixed the assessments as follows:
Year Land Building Total
All years $3,300,000 $100,000 $3,400,000
*96 The landowner purported to appeal “from so much of the [judgment] as increases and fixed the valuations of the land at $3,300,000”. The Appellatе Division “modified, on the law, to vacate that portion [of the judgment] which increased the assessments for the land for the subject tax years and to reinstate the existing tax assessments on the land for those years, and otherwise affirmed”. It is evidеnt that this determination was not intended to be read literally, that is, if the land value is reduced to $3,050,000, it cannot follow, arithmetically, that the building value is $100,000 and the total assessment is $3,400,000 as fixed by Supreme Court. Some adjustment of one or both of these other two figures would be required. We conclude that, however the language of its order is to be interpreted, the determination of the Appellate Division is erroneous.
At the threshold it is conceded by the taxing authorities that the total assessment determined in this action cannot exceed $3,350,000 ($3,325,000 for the year 1973-1974), the total assessment on the tax rolls.
(People ex rel. Kemp Real Estate Co. v O’Donnel,
It was also error for the Appellate Division to conclude as a matter of law that the value of the land alone cannot be fixed at a figure in excess of $3,050,000, the value assigned to the land by the board of assessors. The court’s conclusion appears to have been predicated on the proposition that for the courts to increase the valuе assigned to the land on the tax rolls would be impermissibly to arrogate to the judiciary an authority committed to the boаrd of assessors — that the function of review is distinct from the function of assessment.
Subdivision 3 of section 502 of the Real Propеrty Tax Law provides explicitly that “[o]nly the total assessment, however, shall be subject to judicial review”.
*
Thus, the
*97
courts in the рresent action must limit judicial review only to the total value of $3,350,000 ($3,325,000 for the year 1973-1974). In the process of the review of thе total assessments the courts are authorized and may be expected to make separate factuаl determinations as to the value properly to be assigned to the land and the value properly to be assigned to the building
(People ex rel. Strong v Hart,
Accordingly, the valuation of the land (as well as of the building) should be determined as a finding of fact; to fix it as a matter of law is error (save possibly in some unusual case, as, for instance, to give effect to a stipulation of thе litigants)
(Matter of Metropolitan Life Ins. Co. v Tax Comm.,
For the reasons stated, the order of the Appellate Division should be reversed, without costs, and the casе remitted to that court to examine the factual determinations made by Supreme Court with respect to the valuation of the land and of the building as an incident to a review of the total assessments of the property, which cannоt be *98 fixed in an amount in excess of the total assessment on the tax rolls for each year.
Chief Judge Cooke and Judgеs Jasen, Wachtler, Meyer, Simons and Kaye concur.
Order reversed, without costs, and matter remitted to the Appellаte Division, First Department, for further proceedings in accordance with the opinion herein.
Notes
Subdivision 3 of section 502 provides: ‘The assessment roll shall contain a column for the entry with respect to each separately assеssed parcel of the assessed valuation of
*97
the land exclusive of any improvements, followed by a column fоr the entry of the total assessed valuation. Only the total assessment, however, shall be subject to judicial review prоvided by article seven of this chapter.” In
People ex rel. Kemp Real Estate Co. v O’Donnel
(