Opinion
102277/03.
Decided May 16, 2005.
Counsel, on behalf of plaintiffs, certain real property owners within the City of New York, filed more than sixty separate complaints, all of which mirror each other. Essentially, plaintiffs challenge the valuation of their properties for tax purposes, contending that the assessments were unfairly elevated by the Department of Finance, and not properly reviewed by the New York City Tax Commission. Plaintiffs claim that as a result of a bribery scheme involving a number of New York City tax assessors, certain properties were underassessed, causing the remaining properties, including those owned by plaintiffs, to be overassessed. By their complaints, plaintiffs seek compensatory and related damages, alleging fraud, breach of fiduciary duty and negligence on the part of defendants, New York City and its agencies.
At a preliminary conference with the attorney for plaintiffs and with the City's counsel, I indicated that I was skeptical as to the legal validity of such plenary actions in this kind of situation. However, a summary judgment motion with respect to one of these prototype cases was already sub judice before Justice Saralee Evans. Therefore, it was understood that nothing further would be done, at least until the outstanding motion was decided.
Discussion
By decision dated November 1, 2004 in the case of 315-321 Realty Co., Assoc. LLC v. City of New York, et al., Index No. 111984/03, Justice Evans granted defendants' summary judgment motion and dismissed that action in its entirety. The decision was based on two grounds. First, that plaintiff lacked standing to bring the suit against the City or its agencies. As noted therein, plaintiff, in alleging that it, "like all non-bribing taxpayers", has been injured by the deterioration of the tax base resulting from the bribery scheme, did not allege any special damage, "different in kind and degree from the community generally." Such tenuous harm is insufficient to trigger judicial intervention. See New York State Ass'n of Nurse Anesthetists v. Novello, 2 NY3d 207 (2004).
Second, as noted therein, judicial review of a claimed over-assessment is available exclusively via a certiorari proceeding under Article 7 of the Real Property Tax Law. See In re Kraebel v. New York City Dept. of Finance, 217 AD2d 416 (1st Dept 1995) app. dism'd 85 NY2d 835 (1995). That procedure provides the taxpayer with a forum where it can be demonstrated that the particular assessment was overvalued, illegal or unequal to others. In re Dudley v. Kerwick, 52 NY2d 542, 549-50 (1981). Therefore, according to the opinion, the Court lacked subject matter jurisdiction regarding that plenary action.
I fully agree with the well-reasoned decision of Justice Evans. Further, I believe that the decision is now "law of the case" with respect to the rest of the more than sixty filed complaints. As noted, the complaints all state the same causes of action, and all contain language which is either identical or virtually identical to that found in 315-321 Realty Co., Assoc. LLC. Thus, while the lawsuits were commenced as separate actions, and not consolidated, the issues in each are the same.
The doctrine of "law of the case" is a rule of practice that once an issue is judicially determined, that should be the end of the matter as far as judges and courts of coordinate jurisdiction are concerned. Martin v. City of Cohoes, 37 N.Y2d 162, 165 (1995); Holloway v. Cha Cha Laundry Inc., 97 AD2d 385, 386 (1st Dept. 1983). While "law of the case" generally applies to the same litigation, the fact that these mirror-image lawsuits are separate actions should not be reason enough to defeat the doctrine's purpose. The rationale for such a rule, as noted in the case of In re Haas, 33 AD2d 1, 7-8 (4th Dept 1969) is that "any other would render impossible any finality of the decisional process, reduce the administration of justice . . . create uncertainty . . . place the litigant in a revolving door leading from judge to judge . . . and prevent the ultimate determination of the rights of the parties by appropriate appellate review". . . . This should not be allowed to happen here.
Conclusion
For the above stated reasons, this Court sua sponte directs that the Clerk enter judgment dismissing in its entirety, each of the following sixty six cases, referred to below by name of plaintiff and by index number:
3070 Bainbridge Ave. 103097/03 Carpenter Realty LLC 103049/03
Overing Properties, Inc. 103098/03VTS Properties Inc. 103095/03
Tremont Associates LLC103053/03 Parkside Associates LLC 103151/03
VAS Realty Corp. 103291/03 Theodore W. Simons 102921/03
89-20 Park Lane So Realty LLC 102920/03 Chikako Tomida 103050/30
2800 Coyle Street Owners Corp. 103096/03 Singer Studio Corp. 102500/03
Park Slope North HDFC 102498/03 Dundee Equity Corp. 102670/03
Borden House Condominium 102667/03535 East 86th Street Corp. 102503/03
Third Equity Owners Corp. 102277/03130 East 35th Street LLC 102668/03
Parc Vendome Condominium 111784/03223 West 19th Street Condo 102671/03
George Kotsonis 111783/03 Aim Holding, LLC 102499/03
3 Hanover Square Owners Corp. 102502/0377th Street Realty Assoc. LP 111779/03
301 East 66th Street LLC 102497/03301 E. 66th Condo Assoc. 102669/03
EB Dara Inc., GP102504/03EB Dara Inc., GP 102505/03
Turner Towers Tenant Corp. 102501/0342 Graham Holding Corp. 102506/03
EHF Realty Corp. 102507/03 Lori Realty Co. 102278/03
Westmoreland Associates, LLC 110212/03425 East 76 St Assoc LLC 111842/03
320 E 22nd Realty Assoc LLC 111843/0336 Gramercy Park Rlty Assoc LLC 111777/03
Gladstone Realty Holding Co., Ltd. 111982/03207 Realty Assoc LLC 111985/03
Jobman 478/480 LP 111778/0310 West 74 St Assoc LLC 111776/03
150 West 82 St Realty Assoc LLC 111841/032-4 Realty Assoc LLC 111983/03
217 Realty Assoc LLC 111986/03241 Realty Assoc LLC 111987/03
Pandora Realty LLC 103055/03Merico Realty LLC 103052/03
Selene Realty LLC 103051/03 Sadell Holding Corp. 103054/03
Pefko Realty LLC 103099/03 Grand Union Hotel Prop Mgmt. 103153/03
637 Second Ave. Realty Co. 103152/03 Crete Realty Co. LLC 103100/03
Seaport South Condominium 111780/03 Sterling Condominium 111782/03
Trafalgar House Condominium 102508/03 Cove Club Condominium 111781/03
Quik Park Columbia Garage Corp. 105329/04488 7th Ave. Assoc. 105330/04
Quik Park 61st Garage Corp. 105331/04 York 61 St. Realty Corp. 105333/04
Eagle LLC 105326/04 UN Garage LLC 105325/04
Bond Street Garage 1, LLC 105334/04 Quik Park W 35 St. Garage Corp 105332/04
111 Hudson Street LLC 105324/04 Broome Street Artists Corp. 105323/04
This opinion constitutes the decision and order of the Court.