Opinion
2014-06-13
In the Matter of NIAGARA MOHAWK POWER CORPORATION, doing business as National Grid, Petitioner–Plaintiff–Appellant, v. TOWN OF MARCY ASSESSOR, Town of Marcy Board of Assessment Review and Town of Marcy, Respondents–Defendants–Respondents.
Hiscock & Barclay, LLP, Albany (Karla M. Corpus of Counsel), for Petitioner–Plaintiff–Appellant. Gorman, Waszkiewicz, Gorman & Schmitt, Utica (William P. Schmitt of Counsel), for Respondents–Defendants–Respondents.
Hiscock & Barclay, LLP, Albany (Karla M. Corpus of Counsel), for Petitioner–Plaintiff–Appellant. Gorman, Waszkiewicz, Gorman & Schmitt, Utica (William P. Schmitt of Counsel), for Respondents–Defendants–Respondents.
PRESENT: CENTRA, J.P., FAHEY, PERADOTTO, LINDLEY, and VALENTINO, JJ.
MEMORANDUM:
In this hybrid CPLR article 78 proceeding/declaratory judgment action, petitioner-plaintiff (plaintiff) contends that various parcels of real property it owns in respondent-defendant Town of Marcy (Town) should not be subject to special ad valorem levies imposed by the Town's sewer and garbage districts because the subject properties are not benefitted by the districts' services, and that Supreme Court therefore erred in denying its motion for summary judgment seeking a declaration to that effect and in granting the cross motion of respondents-defendants (defendants) for summary judgment. We reject that contention. “The test for determining whether real properties are benefitted, thus warranting special district assessment, is whether the properties are ‘capable of receiving the service funded by the special ad valorem levy’ ” (Matter of Niagara Mohawk Power Corp. v. Town of Tonawanda Assessor, 17 A.D.3d 1090, 1091, 796 N.Y.S.2d 202,affd. sub nom. Matter of Niagara Mohawk Power Corp. v. Town of Watertown, 6 N.Y.3d 744, 810 N.Y.S.2d 399, 843 N.E.2d 1138, quoting New York Tel. Co. v. Supervisor of Town of Oyster Bay, 4 N.Y.3d 387, 393, 796 N.Y.S.2d 7, 828 N.E.2d 964). “An ad valorem tax will not be deemed invalid unless the taxpayer's benefit received from the imposition of the tax is reduced to the point where it is, in effect, nonexistent” ( Water Club Homeowner's Assn., Inc. v. Town Bd. of Town of Hempstead, 16 A.D.3d 678, 679, 792 N.Y.S.2d 533 [internal quotation marks omitted]; see Matter of Sperry Rand Corp. v. Town of N. Hempstead, 53 Misc.2d 970, 971–973, 280 N.Y.S.2d 600,affd.29 A.D.2d 968, 290 N.Y.S.2d 864,affd.23 N.Y.2d 666, 295 N.Y.S.2d 490, 242 N.E.2d 745).
Here, “ ‘there is a sufficient theoretical potential of the properties to be developed in a manner that will result in the generation of garbage [and sewage]’ ” ( Town of Watertown, 6 N.Y.3d at 748, 810 N.Y.S.2d 399, 843 N.E.2d 1138, quoting Town of Tonawanda Assessor, 17 A.D.3d at 1092, 796 N.Y.S.2d 202). Unlike the plaintiff in Long Is. Water Corp. v. Supervisor of Town of Hempstead, 77 A.D.3d 795, 910 N.Y.S.2d 95,lv. denied16 N.Y.3d 711, 2011 WL 1643278, plaintiff herein owns the land on which its “mass” properties sit, and we conclude that it is theoretically possible that such land, if put to a different use, could generate garbage and sewage.
Supreme Court therefore properly denied plaintiff's motion and properly granted defendants' cross motion. Because plaintiff sought declaratory relief, however, the court erred in dismissing the petitions-complaints without declaring the rights of the parties ( see New York Tel. Co. v. Supervisor of Town of Oyster Bay, 6 A.D.3d 511, 512, 775 N.Y.S.2d 349,affd.4 N.Y.3d 387, 796 N.Y.S.2d 7, 828 N.E.2d 964;Restuccio v. City of Oswego, 114 A.D.3d 1191, 1191, 979 N.Y.S.2d 749), and we therefore modify the judgment accordingly.
It is hereby ORDERED that the judgment so appealed from is unanimously modified on the law by vacating the provision dismissing the petitions-complaints and granting judgment in favor of respondents-defendants as follows:
It is ADJUDGED and DECLARED that the imposition of ad valorem levies for garbage collection and sewer services against the subject properties is valid,