Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1978-1979 (follow-up) e 3 537—Note of Issue and Statement of Readiness, Ist and Znd Department,,, cuPYRiGHT$973 BY JULIU5 BLUMBERG.INC..LAW BLANK PUBLISHERS CC BO EXCHANGE PL. AT BROADWAY, N.Y.C. 10004 L NOTE OF ISSUE This space for Clerk's file stamp ndex V.,_14487/t7.8... . ........................ Al SUFFOLK �� -- - ,SUPREME., _.. r,I urt. ............ ...-._.._. _._. _. .. ._._ __..County, N. Y. Q NOTICE FOR TRIAL Trial By Jury of-,.---- demanded ❑ (� U THEODORE N . D:,=`LNFORTH, Trial Without jury ❑ Filed by Attorney for.-..Petitioner Dat ttt M served.August..I8# 978.... �! Date issue joined._.. .. . __... _._. ------ NATURE AND OBJECT OF ACTION Petitions (Specify for each cause of Action) )P"46U * Negligence M.V. R.R, Bldg.&Side ark Other against PersonalInju_y ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ Property Damage ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ Both ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ HE BOARD OF ASSESSORS AND THE OARD OF ASSESSMENT REVIEW OF THE Other Tort (specify) ..... ......................_ . . :OUNTY OF SUFFOLK, Contract (specify) ................................................................................ Other Law (specify) ..-.Tax Certiorari..._.... ........................... Matrimonial (specify) ! a......_...... ........... Other Equity (specify) ................ .......................................... Amount Demanded .................................... Other Relief •- n.Ass..... .zt Re=; ECTION 1000 LOCK 10 OT 5-8 THE BOARD OF ASSESSORS and THE BOARD OF HEIKO 8t BUSH , P.C., ASSESSMENT REVIEW OF THE TOWN OF SOUTHOLD, Attorney(s) for RQCAItxsxx Petitioner, vlct4KilWcKdc)0W,4d4,a4t4*x Respondents Office & P.O. Address: Office & P.O. Address: 60001d Country Road Town •Ha11 Garden City, N.Y. 11530 Southold, N. Y. 11791 Phone No.: (516) 742-8877 Phone No.: Preferenceclaimed under...... ...__-------- ...................... .................._----------- on the ground that................. ..........___........-........................ Note: Statement of readiness on reverse side must be completed must he typed or printed. Original and two duplicated originals, with proofs of service required. STATEMENT OF READINESS FOR CLERK'S USE For use in First and Second Judicial Departments N. 1. SERVED Required by Special Mules respecting Calendar Practice I All necessary or proper preliminary proceedings allowed by statute and rule ON applicable to the action (Civil Practice Law and Rules, Article 31, Section 3041 and Rules 3042, 3043 and 3044) and by rules of the Appellate Division appli- cable to motes'of issue. ":t�hivy:.rlaritit..cuu��l�iod-ley-a1�pa�Eies•l�erety; � _ "b. the plaintiff has com leted all such proceedings except petitioner shall be entitled to an exchange of appraisal before trial as provided by the rules of the Court � ancLtixe.plaiaLi�-dae�ato+<�tet�d-t~o-eeri4clnct-t�tese-pr�eezcEirtgs "c. the jg g has completed all such proceedings except they are entitled to an audit and exchange of appraisal pursuant to the Court rules and the defendant has had a reasonable opportunity to complete such proceedings 2. "a. Settlement of this action has been discussed unsuccessfully--or— "b. The reasons why no settlement discussions have been had are: 3. This action is ready for trial. 4. The name of the insurance company, if any,which is acting on behalf of any party either prosecuting or defending the action is" ,f t H 'KO & R P.C., .November-4,197.8 ��'------- ----- ,,r:.. f.��. _ (Date) Signature—type name below L arTin .�• BUSt Attorney(s) for--------Per....-lone e ..... Strike out if inapplicable. Office & P.O. Address 600 Old C`untry74oad8�77 Garden City, N:,Y., 11530 State of New York, County of ss.: State of New York, County of 58.: being duly- sworn, deposes and says; that deponent is not a being duly sworn, depo=es and says; that deponent is not a panty to the action, is over 18 years of age and resides at party to the action, is over 18 years of age and resides at That on the day of 19 deponent served the within note of issue and statement of That on the day of 19 readiness on deponent served the within note of issue and statement of readiness on attorncy(s) for herein, at his office at "torncy(s) for during his absence from said office at lal by then and there leaving a true copy of the same with the address designated by said attorney(s) for that purpose by o depositing a true copy of same enclosed in a postpaid properly hi, cleik; partner; person having charge of said office. addressed wrapper, in--a post office--official depository under L (b) and said office being closed, by depositing a true copy of the exclusive care and custody of the United States Postal Sen- same, enclosed in a sealed wrapper directed to said attorney(s), ice within New York State. 0 in the office letter drop or box. Sworn to before me, this Sworn to fore me, !l' s rte; i " day of 19 day of �' .t7 . '.1 11 Ir BY T D Admission of Service Due service of a note of issue ands admitted this.................... –day of----..........-...................... 19------------• .. ....DUT. .:.. Attorneys for, _ -------- ............. RECEt'1T�D OCT 3 07 f'�I October 10, 1978 Southold Town Board Town Hall Southold, N. Y. 11971 Gentlemen: On Grievance Day, July 18, 1978, I made an appearance before the Board of Assessment Review with respect to five parcels of wetlands In Orient. Some time later I received five letters from Mrs. Henry B. Lytle, Chairman of the Board of Assessment Review, informing me that my petitions had been denied. No basis was given for their decision. On September 22 I called the Assessor's office to request a copy of the minutes of the meetings of the Board of Assessment Review and was told to contact Mrs. Lytle which I did. She advised me to obtain the minutes from the Town Clerk which I did on September 28. At that time I was advised that the only minutes available in the Town Clerk's office were those of Grievance Day. I stopped at the Assessor's office and they advised me that they had no minutes of the subsequent meetings either. On the advice of the Town Clerk I wrote a letter to Mrs. Lytle, a copy of +ihich is attached to this letter, formally requesting access to these minutes. I stopped by the Town Clerk's office this morning and was advised by Mrs. Terry that she had not received any additional minutes of the Board of Assessment Review and therefore could not honor my request. Under Section 73-2 B (1) of the Code of the Town of Southold, It is required that a record of the votes of the members of the Board be maintained. Further, I believe that this Board has an obligation to maintain a record of its findings of fact upon which its decisions are made. I believe I have been denied access to public records and I wish to appeal this denial under Section 73-8 of the Code of the Town of Southold. S cerel y urs William W. Schriever Main Rd. , Orient nts. Senty A Xytte RECEIVED -9.0.Sox EM -01 econic, Mew Qjoik 11958 OCT 10 1978 October 7thtlyflo mr. Albert martocch-Lap Supervisor, Town of Southold, Southold, N. Y. Dear mr. martocch.La-P If you will cheer with mrs . Terry, you will find copy of ietteraddressed to me dated September 27th and signed by William W. Schriever. mr. John u'Lacica of the Real, Property Tax Service Agency in Riverhead has confirmed my understanding and actions in only taxing minutes of the actual Grievance Day hearings and advises me to so notify mr. Schriever. Will. you therefore please have the anciosed-,draft of ietter to mr. Schriever typed and Veturned to ,tee for my signature , with two copies. Than& you. Cordy ai.ly yours . >1 mabei P. Lytle DRAFT TOWN UP SvUTHuLD LETTERHEAD Date mr. Wil"aw W. Schre.Lverr orient N. Y. Dear mR. Schre.Lver, Thanx you for your ietter of Sept. 2vth. The minutes suppled to you are the records of the iueet.Lng of the Board of AssessuLent Rev.Lew for Grievance Day— Iv7o. Un advice frosu the Real property Tax Service Agency Ln Riverhead, Lt Ls nut necessary to furnish you with any further Lnfurivation. Very tru.Ly yvurst Mabei P. Lytiep Chairman, The Board of Assessment Review Town of Southoid, N. Y. _.. f I' Sep tembar 29 1978 78 Mrs. Henry B Lytle, Chairman , Board of Assessment Review Town of Southold Soundview Ave. Peconic, N. Y. 11958 De€r Mrs. Lytle: Following the advice of our telephone conversation last Friday, I requested the minutes of the meetings of the Board of Assessment Review from Mrs. Terry, the Town Clerk. She supplied me with the minutes of my meeting with the Board but did not have in her file any minutes of the subsequent meetings of your Board at which my petition was discussed or acted upon. I also requested such minutes of the Assessors and they Informed me they had nothing of that sort on file. Both the Town Clerk and the Assessors advised me to make my request for these minutes to you In writing. I request access to all of the minutes of the meetings of the Board of Assessment Review subsequent to the date I appeared before the Board, namely Grievance Day, July 18, 1978. In particular I wish to obtain the disposition of every petition before the Board and the votes of the: members of the Board on each action taken. Further, I request that, if such minutes do not show the basis for each action taken, then such records as do provido such findings of fact be made available. And finally, I request permission to have copies of such parts of these d:�cunents as appear of interest to me after my review of the documents. I hereby offer to pay the required fee for any copies requested and I ask that such documents be made available to rrr� through the office of the Town Clerk as were the minutes from Grievance Day. S ncerel yours, C°P5 to the Town Clerk � �,; �(c (7 • ._�c� y ;'>�% �, ��.'�!; i William W. Schriever Box 128, Main Road Orient, N. Y. 11957 4; E' Nonce OF cNrnv Index No. Year 19 SUPREME COURT ry.. Sir:- Please take notice that the within is a (certified) SUFFOLK COUNTY true copy of a duly entered in the office of the clerk of the within - named court on 19 THE AD HOC ASSN,' OF MATTI- Detecj, TUCK "INLET WATCH DOGS AND THE BROWER WOODS Yours,etc., ASSN. Attorney for Petitioners Office and Post Office Address F. _VS_ BOARD OF ZONING & APPEALS OF THE -TOWN OF SOUTHOLD To FTAL Respondents. Attorney(s) for t _ }�y r�p {7 �-1 I•� NOTICE OF SETTLEMENT AR l ICLE 1 V PROCEEDIN IS Sir:—Please take notice that an order of which the within is a true copy will be presented JAMES BITSES, Esq. for settlement to the Hon. Attorney for Petitioners one of the judges of the within named Court, at Office and Post office Address, Telephone Main Road on the day of 19 Solltholdi N.' Y.' 11671 at M. 516 765 -57001 DateciS To Yours, etc., Attorney(s) for Attorney for _ Office and Post Office Address Serv) of a top�y of the Withit l L • a'''-u^f°yGfi� is hereby admitted. V' " To di (Ltd" " ANorncy(s) for te004 I , JULIUe BLL'MBERO. INC.,00 6KCN0kNCE PLACE,N.Y. a i At a Special Term Parte of the Supreme Court of the State of New York, held in and for the County of Suffolk at Riverhead, N. Y. on the/ ay of Sept. 1978 Present; Hon.&LrzV,"I ,_ .. - - - - - - � - - - - - - - - - -- - --X ITHE AD HOC ASSOCIATION OF MATTITUCK INLET WATCH DOGS AND THE BROWE R WOODS ASSOCIATION, ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE Petitioners PURSUANT TO ARTICLE 78. -�vs- BOARD OF ZONING & APPEALS OF THE TOWN INDEX NO. f OF SOUTHOLD AND THE COMMISSIONERS THEREOF INDIVIDUALLY AS MEMBERS OF AID BOARD OF ZONING & APPEALS, Respondents. - .. - - - - - .. _ _ _ - - - _ - - - -X , Upon the annexed Petition of James Bitses, Esq. , attorney or the Petitioners herein, affirmed this 14th day of September, 1978, and he exhibits annexed thereto, i Let the respondents, Board of Zoning & Appeals of the Town y of Southold, and the members thereof individually and as members of the i, aid Board of Zoning & Appeals, show cause at a Special Term, Part , �of this Court to be held on the?Cr;ljday of September, 1978, at 10 otclock # to the forenoon of that day or as soon thereafter as Counsel can be heard at the Supreme Court House, Griffing Avenue, River dread, New York, 11971, a' r Why an order pursuant to CPLR Article 78 should not be granted reversing, rescinding, nullifying, and setting aside a certain variance granted by said !respondent to Mat-A- Mat Marina, Inc. on or about June 15, 1978, and why Such other and further and different relief should not be granted to the �Petitioners as to the Court may seem just and proper, together with costs pnd disbursements. Sufficient cause appearing therefor, let service of a copy of °zr `this Order and a copy of the Petition with exhibits annexed hereto, on any 4 . � ,employee of the Board of Zoning & Appeals of the Town of Southold or in ,the alternative upon the Town Clerk of the Town of Southold on or before ii day of September, 1978, be deemed sufficient. 1}Dated: Riverhead, N. Y. c�l�t �� September/`1978.' Justice of the Supreme Court t SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK COUNTY OF' SUFFOLK - - - - _ - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -X THE AD HOC ASSOCIATION OF MATTITUCK INLET WATCH DOGS AND THE BROWER WOODS ASSOCIA TION, Petitioners NOTICE OF PETITION -vs- PURSUANT TO BOARD OF ZONING & APPEALS OF THE TOWN ARTICLE 78 OF SOUTHOLD AND THE COMMISSIONERS INDEX NO. THEREOF INDIVIDUALLY AS MEMBERS OF SAID BOARD OF ZONING & APPEALS, Respondents. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -X SIRS: PLEASE TAKE NOTICE, upon the annexed Petition of the attorney for the above Petitioners, James Bitses, Esq. , affirmed the 14th day of September, 1978, an application will be made to this Court at a Special Term, Part thereof, to be held at the Supreme Court House, Griffing Avenue, Riverhead, New York, 11901 on the day of September, 1978 at 10 otclock in the forenoon of that day or as soon thereafter as ,Counsel can be heard, for a judgment pursuant to CPLR Article 78, nullify- 1!ing, rescinding, vacating and setting aside a variance granted by respondent ?to Mat-A•-Mar Marina Corporation on or about the 15th day of June, 1978 i tiand for such other and further relief as to this Court may be deemed just and proper. PLEASE TAKE FURTHER NOTICE, that an answer and jsupporting affidavits, if any, shall be served at least five days before the iaforesaid date of hearing. Petitioner designates Suffolk County as the place of trial. The ,basis of venue is that the respondent refused to perform lawful duties en- joined upon him by the statute in the said County. J Yours etc. , i,Dated: Southold, New York JAMES BITSES I4 September 14, 1978 Attorney for Petitioners Main Road Southold, N. Y. 11971 t To: Board of Zoning & Appeals 516 765-5700 of the Town of Southold Main Road, Southold, N. Y. To: Gary Olsen, Esq. Main Road, Mattituck, N. Y. 11952 i 1� I i . i P a SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK { COUNTY OF SUFFOLK - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -- -X I THE AD HOC ASSOCIATION OF MA TTIT[1CK INLET WATCH DOGS AND THE BROWER WOODS ASSOCIA TION, Petitioners, -vs- PETITION BOARD OF ZONING & APPEALS OF THE TOWN OF SOUTHOLD AND THE COMMISSIONERS THEREOF INDIVIDUALLY AS MEMBERS OF SAID BOARD OF ZONING & APPEALS, Respondents. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -X 1. The Petitioners herein, an ad hoc Committee of more than seventy five (75) homeowners, have united to oppose the granting of a variance by the Board of Zoning and Appeals of the Town of Southold to Mat-A-Mar Marina, Inc, of Mattituck. The Petitioner homeowners live in an area which is designated as "A" Zone residential, and which completely , surrounds the Mat-A-Mar Marina which was designated a "132: Zone by a special resolution of the Town Board of the Town of Southold dated July, 1966, 2. That specifically on or about May 5, 1978 Mat-A-Mar served notice upon contiguous land owners of its intention to seek a variance to sell retail boats. Application No. 2419 was made to the respondent Board of Zoning and Appeals on or about May 8, 1978 for a permit to use the premises for a retail sale of boats and requested a variance therefor. (B2 Zone permits the operation of a marina but does not permit the sale of boats). In order to do same Mat-A-Mar was obliged to seek a variance. f y 3, On May 12, 1978 the Building Inspector of the Town of Southold disapproved of the said application on the ground that "the retail sale of boats are a non-permitted use in a B2 Zone". This is standard operating procedure. An appeal was taken by amort Mat-A-Mar to ! the respondent Board of Zoning and Appeals and on June 15, 1978 the said respondent granted "applicant permission to sell retail boats.. . . . ". H Copies of Mat-A-Marts Notice, Notice of Appeal, Notice of Disapproval ,land Decision of the Zoning Board of Appeals of the Town of Southold are '!affixed hereto and made a part hereof as Exhibits A, B, C, & D respectively. �► 4. That on June 20, 1978 the plaintiffs ad hoc association of Mattituck Inlet Watch Dogs and the Brower Woods Association, served a Notice of Appeal pursuant to Section 267 of the Town law, requesting that (; 4 I`I 11 �a —1— the respondent Board of Zoning and Appeals reconsider the variance granted to defendant Mat-A-Mar and that the same be annulled, vacated and set aside. 5. That in support of the said Appeal the Petitioners herein served a Petition of Appeal upon the respondent Board in which were outlined the legal reasons why Petitioners believed that the variance should be rescinded and annulled. {� B. The essential issue which was the heart of the said Petition and which is also the heart of this Article 78 proceeding, is that the respondent Board of Zoning and Appeals has totally ignored the require- ments of the law as regards to the granting of variances. It was Petitioners further contention that Mat-A-Mar failed to sustain the burden of proof by demonstrating compelling reasons, as required by law, why they should be granted a variance. An examination of Exhibit B, duCf�PCYtden Mat--A-Mars Appeal from the decision of the Building Inspector, makes it abundantly ' clear that (a) they failed to state "practical difficulties or unnecessary 1hardship as required by statute; (b) they failed to indicate how the alleged 1hardship was unique; (c) they failed to establish that the variance "would root change the character of the district". The oral record presented on June 8, 1978 (which is to be submitted as a supplemental affidavit to this I ;;Petition to be marked Exhibit E), shows that the record is totally devoid 'of the basic essentials required to establish the legal prerequisites for the !granting of a variance. 7. We submit that the respondent Zoning Board does not 1make the law - it obeys the law. It is obliged to obey the law just as the !'Petitioners are obliged to obey the law. When a governmental body ignores 1!the law and acts arbitrarily and capriciously without regard to the equities j or the facts of the matter, it is subverting the foundation of good government. 8. The issue before this Court at this time and in this matter a i is whether the action of the defendant Zoning Board on the application forit ' i i variance is founded on substantial evidence (CPLR 7803, sub--division 4), ,and whether Mat-A-Mar has satisfied its burden of proof. 9. Let us therefore examine the law in question with a view ' toward establishing whether the record indicates if substantial evidence `was submitted by Mat-A-Mar to the respondent Zoning Board. is 3' An examination of Exhibit B, Mat-a-Marts Appeal from the decision of the Building Inspector, contains the following: : I. Question #1: Strict application of the ordinance would !produce practical difficulties or unneccessary hardship because: i 1 — -2 s li 1 I ! Answer #1 "the retail sale of boats has become a necessary laspect of the marina business today. The retail sale of boats which this :variance is requesting would not be a separate business but would be an 3 accessory use to applicantst present marina business. The business would �be conducted at least 1001 from Wickham Avenue and accordingly would not i aesthetically change the nature of the neighborhood. Question #2. The hardship created is LTNIG,7UE and is not shared by all properties alike in the immediate vicinity of this property and in this use district because: Answer #2: there are no other marinas nearby and `because the applicant's property is presently zoned B-1 which permits of marina use, of which the proposed retail sale of boats would be a necessary aspect. Question #3: The Variance would observe the spirit of the Ordinance and would not change the character of the District because: 1 Answer #3: the applicant would still be operating a marina business and a variance for the retail sale of boats would not in any iIway change the character of the neighborhood. 10. "Before the Zoning Board may exercise its discretion and !, grant a variance upon the ground of unnecessary hardship, the record must show (1) the land in question cannot yield a reasonable return if used only for the purpose allowed in that zone; (2) that the plight of the owner is due to unique circumstances and not to the general conditions in the neighborhood I which may reflect unreasonableness of the zoning ordinance itself; and � (3) that the use to be authorized by the variance will not alter the essential j character of the locality. " (Bassett on Zoning Pg 120 etc; Otto vs (! Steinhilber 282 NY 71). The Court of Appeals in McGown vs Cohalan and Town of Islip (1977) 303 NYS-•2 376 and Grimpel Associates vs Cohalan & Town of ! Islip (1977) 393 NYS-2 373 stated: "the property owner must show more than that the current'zoning classification has caused a significant dimitnution in value, or that a substantially higher value could be obtained if an j I alternative use is permitted. Rather, the proper test is whether the owner can presently receive a reasonable return on his property," To succeed. .. , the owner must establish that no reasonable return may be had from any permitted use" (Williams vs Town of Oyster J !'. Bay 343, NYS-2 118); Unless the respondent demonstrates be and a reasonable doubt that the property will not yield a_reasonable return under any of the f uses permitted tithe zoni ordinance he fails to satisfy his burden ofrp oof• " ' (Matter of National Merritt vs Weist 393 NYS 2 379). i i L' i I 11 .1 That M at-A-11;9 r is required by the law and by the cases i 11�leited (Court of Appeals, February 197 7) to bring forth evidence that l=t-A-Mar cannot presently receive a reasonable return on his property and he must establish that the said property will not yield a reasonable 3 1,return under the existing uses, beyond a reasonable doubt. The cases are clear that if he fails to satisfy this stringent burden of proof, he fails to establish the basic requirement for the granting of a variance. �I 12. In the case at bar Mat-A--Mar not only failed to bring forth 1 ;the evidence required by law, but what is more pernicious, the respondent f Zoning Board - in the total absence of this necessary evidence and in the )total failure of Mat-A--Mar to satisfy the burden of proof nevertheless wrongfully granted a variance which was an act that was clearly prohibited by the statute and by the requirements of the citations. i 13. In a re-examination of Exhibit B, I submit that respondents ;answer to question #1 does not satisfy the requirements of the law. In question #2, that "there are no other marinas nearby" is not what is meant i iffy unique hardship. Again he repeats his inadequate answer to question #1 i.'I'the proposed retail sale of boats would be a necessary aspect,.._.. of ' marina use." This is redundant and does not address the requirements of ; ,the law. He fails to carry the burden of proof. i li I 14. An example of what is meant by unique hardship will be yfound in the following case; Petitioner requested a variance to erect a six � !,foot chain link fence. Denial of petitioners application to erect said fence i 4and thus obtain a �ariance from the four foot fence limit, was arbitrary, !capricious and an abuse of discretion , particularly in view of the 15 foot ;drop down an embankment to railroad tracks at the rear of petitioners j jpremises. (Matter of Halstead Realty vs Iioltzman 390 NYS 2 216). is Here again the respondent Zoning Board ignored the re- iquirements of the law; ignored the fact that Mat-A-Mar had failed again to { 1patisfy his burden of proof, and blithely granted a variance that was un- i pupported by the essential evidence mandated by the statute and by the ' 'citations. � i 15. That MaL-A-Mar seeks a use variance. It seeks to ichange the allowable uses as presently permitted under a B2 Zone (the docking of pleasure boats at a marina) and wishes to add thereto a totally different commercial aspect which is presently lacking. It wishes to be ,permitted to buy and sell boats at retail. The implications of such a change ;are obvious. The purchase and sale of tise boats carries with it the ;necessity to service these boats. The said necessity carries with it the ;implication of heavy lifting equipment for the removal of the boats from ;the water and returning same therein; it implies a machine shop for the service of the engines, a paint shop for the service of the hulls, a sail i :loft for the service of the sails and masts, trucking for the land transportation i -4- f of the said new boats increasing traffic by suppliers and sub-contractors, I increased noise attendant upon repair shoes and machine works, increased pollution attendant upon boats in excess of those presently moored and other additional uses which normally art(] naturally flow from the granting of this use variance which we cannot at present predict, but which in- evitably follow. i 16. It has been held that "a use variance will have greater impact on the community than an area variance which does not involve j a use prohibited by ordinance, however, magnitude of desired area of i variance, while within the confines of permitted use, is a significant i factor since the greater the variance from area restrictions, the more ;.severe the likely impact on the community". (National Merrit vs Weist 393 NYS 2 379). i 17. In the instant matter4he has operated what has amounted to a floating hotel , (except that this floating hotel uses Mattituck Inlet for a cesspool). Patrons arrive by boat and leave by boat. ! ';Use of the local streets is incidental and minimal. Now, however,Mat A--Mar 'Use a variance for an additional use which will change the character and ;alter the use of the Marina property, making it a thorough going commercial ienterprise, shifting it into an industrial zone. 18. That Mat-A-Mar is surrounded on all sides by what 1jamount to fine mansions. In the twelve years since he was allowed to !,obtrude into this area, his patrons have pumped uncounted gallons of raw !]human sewage into the south end of Mattituck Inlet (which respondent Board 1;knows is the stagnant end, lacking an ebb and flow). It is now dangerous to take shell fish in the vicinity of the Marina. One swims near Mat-A-Mar #} From May to November at risk of hepatitis, polio and dysentery. One walks ;the beaches surrounding Mat-A-Mar Marina and is nauseated by the toilet paper strewn thereon. �i , Now the proposal by Mat-A-Mar is to pollute the streets to his vicinity as well, with an increased load of commercial traffic. This ' ;new use is bound to alter the essential character of the locality. i+ 19. The plaintiff submits to this Court that the enumerated {changes that have taken place in this area during the last twelve years were { well known to the respondent Zoning Board. Not only well known but i notorious Lhroughout the Town. As public servants they were obliged to :note the devastating effects of the previous zone change and as reasonable 11nen were obliged to infer therefrom the reasonable conclusions of the granting of this variance. The respondent Zoning Board seems to be inipelled by a peculiar logic. It chooses to ignore well known facts and to grant this variance on the basis of adverse evidence. The granting of this use variance will so change the character of the neighborhood that :Irnillions of dollars in property values will be lost and thousands of dollars -5- 1i 1 (i in tax revenue likewise lost. Its action in ignoring the evidentiary mandate of the statute and the citations is arbitrary and capricious in the extreme. i� 20. "A review• of the substantiality of the evidence of an ' administrative tribunal is not a mere perfunctory passive function, and f even though, in $re opinion of the court, a conclusion is against the weight f of evidence, it may not disturb the determination if there is substantial 1 evidence to support it, and where there is substantial evidence, the ad- ministrative agency and not the court is the final arbitrator of any fact issue, though the court need not be convinced of the "rightness" of the determination so long as there can be a reasoned probability of the ff facts found by the administrative body. " Phinn v. Kross, 1959, 8 A. D. 12nd 132. f I� j "Substantial evidence", to support determination means competent evidence with which petitioner was confronted at hearing and �I thus afforded an opportun ity to deny or explain". Lindquist v. Swanson, f ; 1948, 273 A. D. 802, quist v. Swanson, 19480 273 A. D. 802, 76 N. Y.S. 2nd 431,, reargument and appeal denied 273 A. D. 941, 78 N. Y. S. 2nd 557. i, if21. The substantial evidence required by the citations is i totally absent from the record of the deliberations of this Zoning Board. 1 `The issue before the Court is not that of substituting its judgment for , that of the Zoning Board. Rather, that the respondent Zoning Board be ' held accountable to the law and to this Court. Where the law requires ,:substantial evidence the law does not speak idly. The respondent Zoning !;Board has the power to dispense largesse which benefit some and seriously detriment others. There are rules and regulations that have been enacted ;and there are decisions that have been handed down which set the require- ments for the granting or the denial of i.his largesse for the very simple i reason that these gifts can be of great benefit or they can be disastrous jin their consequences. Where a governmental body ignores the law, as iin the instant case, it ignores the distilled common sense of thousands !pf people and millions of events. This conduct is not only contrary to law l,but is also freighted with the direst consequences to generations yet to i'come. The respondent Zoning Board believes that it can act on its own ;initiative without the necessity of the evidentiary requirements of the Jaw. The combined plaintiffs herein plead for the intervention of this 'Court to prevent this miscarriage of justice. i r That the relief sought herein has not been heretofore ? ,previously requested. ! i l WHEREFOR, the plaintiffs demand that the decision of jthe respondent Board of Zoning and Appeals of the Town of Southold be set aside, revoked, nullified and rescinded, and for such other ,be further relief as to this Court may seem just and proper under !;the circumstances. I� JAMES BITSES, Esq. Attorney for Petitioners i Main Road Southold, N. Y. 11971 516 765-•5700 'CC: Board of Zoning & Appeals Town of Southold ' Main Road t Southold, N. Y. 11971 Gary Olsen, Esq. Attorney for Mat-•A-Mar Marina Main Road Mattituck, N. Y. 11952 i { I l ' I{ I� t j' 1 BOARD OF APPEALS. TOWN OF SOUTHOLD In the Matter of the Petition of NlAT1'-A-A,1AR INTAR. , INC. NOTICE to.the Board of Appeals of the Town of Southold 10: Walter Williams Vina Fiaker YOU ARE HEREBY GIVEN NOTICE: 1. That it is the intention of the undersigned to petition the Board of Appeals of the Town of Southold to request a (Variance) OiptM�C 3 �'� #3�i t 3�I C(the following relief: _11ap arj rQ inr V!lr?1� �.�onto ll..rP2 i1_b a s a_t_ 2. That the property which is the subject of the Petition is located adjacent to your property and is des- cribed as follows: West side of Wickham Aye1. ,_]l_iattj L qkj N bounce Qn, e north_ gouth and ,vest bv Nlattituck geek; _East by -Raker-and William* a_nd_Wi_ckhRn1 AX,- 3. That the property N�hich is the subject of such Petition is located in the following zoning district: Bi _ --- ---.—_-- ------ -- 4. That by such Petition, the undersigned will request the following relief: A__V_arianu to sell re- tail boats at applicants' marina_ 5. That the provisions of the Southold Town Zoning Code applicable to the relief sought by the under- signed are: _Ar�iCl�_SLTI,�ecti111Q�7Q ------_._----- 6. That within five days from the date hereof, a written Petition requesting the relief specified above will be filed in the Southold Town Clerk's Office at Main Road, Southold, New York and you may then and there examine the same during regular office hours. 7. That before the relief sought may be granted, a public hearing must be Ithe matter by the Board of Appeals;that a notice of such hearing must be published at least five d Vs prior io the date of such hearing in the Suffolk Times and in the Long Island Traveler-Mattituck Watch n, news apers published in the Town of Southold and designated for the publication of such notices; that yo, or your resentative have the right to appear and be heard at such hearing. Matt-A-141ar ar. D;i ted: r Petitioner ary ar,ner Olsen, Esq. Post Office Address P..0_-Box 3 8,_1ain_13na d__ Xlattituck.-N.ew_Yor1__L952— --- -5 J �. K'<1r�'`%'� PROOF OF MAILING OF NOTICE NAME AUDRESS W,ilter Willianis Mattituck, New York, 11952 Vina Baker Mattituck, New York 11952 4 RECEIPT FOR CERTIFIED MAIL a= e� Sir,l TO PDST:AARK -Walter ,��'il_]ianrs- --- ----- - OR DATE STPFET AND NO P Cv,STATE AND UP CODE �-i Mattituck, New York 11952�� OPTIONAL SEAVICES i0A AODI110_ t'fis— �r RETUPH �t• Shows to wAom and date dehvtred ......... 'fb� { 7' WRh raxlncted dahver r r RECEI?T p, Shaws to whom,dAle And where delivered a - SERV:CES With ttdneted dehvary rI•�.� Ti ------ ._.___ .. PCSTRICO DELIVER--Y tea•. d SPECIAL DELIVERY (estro Tee required) J �•` ,.11� r PS Form Jan.1975 3800 NO INSURANCE COVERAGE PROVIOEO— NOT FOR INTERNATIONAL MAIL fS'• other Aide) i i?cro.ten-oxrt .sr RECEIPT FOR CERTIFIED MAIL Sfhi To Posr'rAR>< Vina OR DATE - Bake>�____.—�____� T STPLET AND 140. • f P.O., STATE AND ZIP CGDE r-I _Alattituck, New York 11952 cp add, ____ OPTIOMIt SERVICES 10;1 *D01i10HAI i[[! ��� ^� RETURN i —fhuw�to w on+Ind a}�eITA ...... _A RECEIPT Wlth restricted delivery S[BVIGES 7. Shorn to whom,dAte And where delivered W.lh rntr'cled del.very .. ' e RESTRICTED DELIVERY - SPECIAL DEUVERI (extro lee reQuih. ................. PS corm 3800 NO INSURANCE COVERAGE PROVIDED— (See ether ride) Jin.ty78 NOT FOR INTERNATIONAL MAIL ft M.un a sit-esz STATE OF NEW YORK ) COUNTY OF SUFFOLK) ss.: C•herip Lynn Russell residing at _L22,ttituck. Nov York being duly sworn, deposes and says that on the 5th day of May —01978 deponent mailed a true copy of the Notice set forth on the re- verse side hereof, directed to each of the above-named persons at the addresses set opposite their respective names; that the addresses set opposite the names of said persons are the addresses of said persons as shown on the current assessment roll of the Town of Southold; that said Notices were mailed at the United States Post Of- fice at 12attitnnk, DIY ;that said Notices were mailed to each of said persons by (ceriificd) (yeVsare4mail. Sworn to berb e e this day of — Y 19 ?$ tary Public r i P., QuJi `) Ill C'j'f';ik CCL'rf 1uTm EA%roi htat� 30, ly7o� TOWN OF SOUTHOLD, NEW YORK APPEAL FROM DECISION OF BUILDING INSPECTOR APPEAL NO. '7 DATE ....� 7 TO THE ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS, TOWN OF SOUTHOLD, N. Y. I, (We) ......Malt.-.A.-.111.A ...1n,......I........... . of ....�! ckhatz}.,...venue, �dattituck. New York Name of Appellant Street and Number ...........�:Tattituck........ . ........................ ............. News York.......HEREBY APPEAL TO . .. Municipality State THE ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS FROM THE DECISION OF THEBUILDING INSPECTOR ON APPLICATION FOR PER .NO. DATED .1 .I..1..7 y G�rJ,......... WHEREBY THE BUILDING INSPECTOR DENIED TO Q �•'v Matt-A-:lt. . ar�..Inc.................................... . . .. Name of Applicant for permit of ....................... .N1:Rtt!tuf'.%,............. N��!c..Xork........... Street and Number Municipality State (X) PERMIT TO USE premises for retail sale of boats. ( ) PERMIT FOR OCCUPANCY 1. LOCATION OF THE PROPERTY ..W.i::kham.AY. ..,.ala.tztku>tia.N.X.......... ........................ Street Use District on Zoning Map .............................................................................. Mop No. Lot No. 2. PROVISION (S) OF THE ZONING ORDINANCE APPEALED (Indicate the Article Section, Sub- section and Paragraph of the Zoning Ordinance by number. Do not quote the Ordirance.) Article 7 Section 100-70 3 TYPE OF APPEAL Appeal is made herewith for (X ) A VARIANCE to the Zoning Ordinance or Zoning Map ( ) A VARIANCE due to lack of access (State of New York Town Law Chop. 62 Cons. Laws Art. 16 Sec. 280A Subsection 3 4 PREVIOUS APPEAL A previous appeal knA (has not) been made with respect to this decision of the Building Inspector or with respect to this property. Such cppeal was ( ) request for a special pe-mit ( ) req-,jest for a variance andwcs mode in Appeal No. .............................. .Dated ................................................................... .. REASON FOR APPEAL ( ) A Variance to Section 280A Subsection 3 (;t ) A Variance to the Zoning Ordinance is requested for the reason that Form ZB1 (Continue on other side) s - REASON FOR APPEAL Continued 1. STRICT APPLICATION OF THE ORDINANCE would produce practical difficulties or unneces- sort' HARDSHIP because the retail sale of boats has become a. necessary aspect of the marina business today. The retail sale of boats which this variance is requesting would riot be a separate bLisitiess but would be as an accessory use to the applicant's present marina business. 'i'he business would he conducted at least 100 feet from %Vickhani /Avenue and accordingly would not esthetically change the nature of thy- neighborhood. 2 The hardship created is UNIQUE and is not shored Ey c!l properties alike in the immediate vicinity of this property and in this use district because there are no other marinas nearby and because the applicant's property is presently zoned B-1 which per-nits of marina use, of which the proposed retail sale of boats would be a necessary aspect. 3 The Variance would observe the spirit of the Ordinance cnJ WOULD NOT CHANGE THE CHARACTER OF THE DISTRICT because the applicant would still be operating a marina business and a variance for the retail sale of boats would not in any way change the character of the neighborhood. G.zt•,}• � ,,nner Isere, Esq. Attu r,f ,o plicant, T�i.� : Inc. STS,,.TE OF NEW YORK ) 11 -f1 �! CCiIiNIY OF St .'VOLK) r ur 5th y 19 CWJrn to this d y of. .ala .. ................................ 7f Notary Public h.,Apy R Cu •2V - C, r "J .4 YYti Phi.' i l oust luxi if, 4 !LY, Terra E�p�r^-+ ti -4 NU. 3 t� TOWN OF SOUTHOLD BUILDING DEPARTMENT TOWN CLERK'S OFFICE SOUTHOLD, N. Y. NOTICE OF DISAPPROVAL FileNo. .. .2419. ................................................. Date ....................May. k?r................... ., 1rJjE... Matt—A-Mar,, Marina# Inc. To ....a/.a..Gar..y...F....i0lsen,..ESg............... ..........JU-in• •Road. ......................................I....... ..........kiattit=c ,...New..York....119.52...... PLEASE TAKE NOTICE that your application dated ............May•.g............................. 19..7.8.. for permit to c '( _r.,....................................at the premises located at .................................... �i���„• , �wf; y/irT�'�..1 ...................................................................... Street . Mop .................................... Block ..........=.......................... Lot ................................................ is returned herewith and disapproved on the fol!ow"rg grounds ............ r .........I� ...................... .f.. .... .. ..........4.!...!........./..... ..... ..!..t. .......... .r......,:..+. /[ ..........:L......../.......... G........................................... ...............................................................I................ . ................................................................................ .............................................................................00000F- /C_" ... 00 /. ...... 'l Building Inspector George Fisher V r TOWN OF SOLIHOLU, ::r:1V YOf(ii I)ATF. A(:TtUy OF 97IP ZONING Is MU) OF AI'VFAU i Appeal No. 2419 Dated ti,t y 8 , 1978 ACTION OF THE ZONING BOAED OF APPEALS O* THE TOS'.' f OF SOU-I'lf0l,rr To Matt-A-Mar Marina, Inc . App liant c/o Gary F. Olsen, Esq. Mattituck , New York 11952 at a meetino of the Z.onina Luard oC Appeals on June 1 , 1978 the zppe:,I p al4�e s( j&' was considered and the action indicated below was taken on your �•sFt,�u�` ( ) Request for variance due to lack of access to property ( ) Request for a special exception under the Zoning Ordinance ( )0 Request for a variance to the Zoning Ordinance 1. SPECIAL EXCEPTION. By resolution of the Board it was determined that a special exception ( ) be granted ( ) be denied pursuant to Article .................... Section .................... Subsection .................... paragraph of the Zoning Ordinance and the decision of the BuLding Inspector ( ) be reversed ( ) be confirmed because 8 : 55 F .M. (D .S .T.) upon application of Matt-P.-Mar Marina, Inc . , c/o Gary F . Olsen, Esq. , Main Road , Mattituck, New York, for a variance in accordance with the Zoning Ordinance , Article VII , Section 100-70 and Bulk and Parking Schedule for permission to sell retail boats . Location of property: Wickham Avenue, Mattituck, New York, bounded on the north by Baker; east by Wickham Avenue; south by Mattituck Creek; and west by Mattituck Creek. 2. VARIANCE. By resolution of the Board it was deter mined that (a) Strict application of the Ordinance (would) (woulri not) produce practical difficulties or unnecessary hardship because SEE REVERSE (b) The hardship created (is) (is not) unique and (would) (would not) be shared by all propertie! alike in the inunediate vicinity of this property and in the sante use district because SEE REVERSE (c) The variance (does) (does not) observe the spirit o! the Ordinance and (would) (would net) change the character of the district because SEE REVERSE: arri therefore, it was furc`,er dctcrmined that the [ec,Lcsted var.. nee ( ) be granted ( ) be denied and that the previous de.:isiorns c.' the Buil,-:in.- Inspector ( ) be be rc%ersed. SEE REVERSE APPI?.UUEU ON!,NG BOARD OF APPEALS Chaif� ,� �;De�`� d� U s e After investigation and inspection, the Boav(l find!, that the applicant requests permission for the retail sale of boats on his prei-iiises . The Board finds that that the public convenience and welfare and justice will be served and the legally established or permitted use of the neighborhood property and the adjoi.ning use districts will not be permanently or substantially injured and the spirit of the Ordinance will be observed . On motion by Mr . Gillispie , seconded by Mr. Bergen, it was resolved that Matt--A-Mar Marina, Inc . , c/o Gary F . Olsen , Esq . Main Road, Mattituck, New York, be GRANTED permission to sell used or r:,w boats upon the condition that there not be stored for resale any new boats in excess of 50 feet, and no more than 15 new boats at one time . The used boats will be in the water . Vote of the Board: Ayes : Messrs: Gillispie , Bergen, Grigonis and Doyen. j , Wept No. Year 19 NOTICE OF ENTRY Sir:-Please take notice that the within is a (certified) 'L�'iupril ui(' � OLY C' ' {})+" THE 1`1111'I, or OF 8UVr0LX true copy of e < 141W YY:�1sti" COUILIIT`.�' duly entered in the office of the clerk of the within' named court on 19 In the tkit(z. of tha :1'0-10Or: Dated, aO(. ,r1:y'1' 7,rw.l;;DING CORP. r r t Yours, etc., ANDREW E. ULLMANN T'c�t� ialYeri, ;Attorney for Office and Post Office Address 2 Woodside Avenue TIZ; ' WV4 (jig :-VJJTXT"OLL) #Incl TUT] NORTHPORT, N. Y. 11768 BOARD OF ��r��i,r,,l:, iS'1*011.7 01,, '.1 a'I:a TOWN ; CSF COUTI:OL!)r 3Olam!! N , I �O�if3f�ttill��,«� I Attorney(s)for U Q -1 NOTICE OF SETTLEMENT �1 nye Y� i }� Yi71*y �(.�.�, ~' _ - - 30 .,LL,E ANri �d~�.L.3.11 If'l i�0, k AB�(:I..GYY �r-4 1'.. e Sir:—Please take notice that an order c+ +[+ ,� , a +�y Y C) nF P 5,,1„1, C ANT OF L ,. , 3 S'RbpE�t7,Y � l•a of which the within is a true copy will be presented for settlement to the Hon. ANDREW E. ULLMANN -I Attorney for Votitiorier r„� 'D ,one of the judges of the within named Court, at Q a Office and Post Office Address, Telephone 2 Woodside Avenue u o �on 19 NORTHPORT, N. Y. 11768 E-+ at M. 516-261-6066 ,Dated, Yours,etc., To i ANDREW E. ULLMANN lAttorney for Attorney(s)for ' Office and Post Office Address 2 Woodside Avenue Service of a copy of the within NORTHPORT, N. Y. 11768 is hereby admitted. • Dated, T ................................................................. Attvo-my(s) for Attorney(s) for 1100-.1ULIUi BLUMBERG.INC..LAW BLANK PtIaL1011ER8.N.Y.0, 10013 SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK COUNTY OF SUFFOLK ---------------------------------------X i In the Matter of the Petition of ASSOCIATED-EAST LENDING CORP. , Petitioner, NOTICE OF APPLICATION - against FOR REVIEW OF ASSESSMENT OF THE TOWN OF SOUTHOLD and THE BOARD REAL PROPERTY OF ASSESSORS OF THE TOWN OF SOUTHOLD, Respondents. --------------------------------------- TO THE ABOVE-NAMED RESPONDENTS: PLEASE TAKE NOTICE that upon the annexed Petition, verified the 111'h day of September, 1977 , the undersigned will make an application at a Special Term, Part IV, of this Court to be held in and for the County of Suffolk at Suffolk County Mini Center, Union Blvd. , Bayshore, New York 11706, Courtroom number 2, on the 26th day of October, 1978, at 9: 30 o'clock in the forenoon of that day, or as soon thereafter as counsel can be heard, for a review under Article 7 of the Real Property Tax Law; of the tax assessment upon the property of this petitioner situated at Mattituck, in the Town of Southold, New York, which property is more particularly described in the annexed petition, and for such other and further relief as to the Court may seem just and proper. Dated: September // 1978 . Yours, etc. , ANDREW E. ULLMANN for T e i.-.t.�. Attorney ivt r��.i.�..ivitc% Office and P. 0. Address TO: THE TOWN OF SOUTHOLD 2 Woodside Avenue and THE BOARD OF Northport, New York 11768 ASSESSORS OF THE TOWN OF SOUTHOLD SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK COUNTY OF SUFFOLK - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -X In the Matter of the Petition of ASSOCIATED-EAST LENDING CORP. , Petitioner, PETITION FOR REVIEW OF -against- ASSESSMENT OF REAL PROPERTY THE TOWN OF SOUTHOLD and THE BOARD OF ASSESSORS OF THE TOWN OF SOUTHOLD, Respondents. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -X TO THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK: The petition of ASSOCIATED-EAST LENDING CORP. respectfully shows: 1. That the petitioner is the owner of certain real property located in the Town of Southold, County of Suffolk and State of New York, more particularly hereinafter described. 2. Upon information and belief, at the times hereinafter mentioned, respondents were charged with the duly of making, reviewing, valuing and assessing property within said Town for taxation for State, County, Town and School purposes; and said repondents made, prepared and completed the assessment roll for said Town for the year 1978/79 and caused to be published due notice of completion thereof and the time and place where said roll might be seen and examined. 3. Upon information and belief, the tentative assessment and the description on said assessment roll of petitioner' s real estate situated in said Town is as follows : Description Total Assessment N x Bethany Cemetery Assn. $ 344 ,700. 00 E x Bethany Cemetery Assn. S x Main Road W x Factory Aroprop 8. 750 acres, School Dist. 9 1000-142-1-26 4 . That within the time allowed by law, your petitioner duly filed with said Respondents a protest of the above-listed assessment and made an application to it to have the same correcte upon the grounds of overvaluation of both land and building. Your petitioner at the time of the filing thereof stated under oath the respects in which the assessment complained of was incorrect and protested the same in accordance with the provisions of the Real Property Law of the State of New York and asked for a review, revision and reduction of said assessment against said real estate The said protest and application was filed with and received by said Board at the time or within the period appointed for the making of such zipplications and protests for revision of such assessment. The said statement contained in said application were then and now are true. 5. Upon information and belief, the said Respondents thereafter completed the assessment roll and made no changes in, but confirmed as final, the assessment set forth in Paragraph "3" hereof. Thereafter and on or before the 1st day of September, 1978 , the said Respondents caused due notice to be published that the said assessment roll had been completed and would be open to public inspection. RIM 6. Upon information and belief, the valuation and lssca3s- i ment of the said parcel of real estate owned by petitioner , so mad as aforesaid by the said Respondents on the assessment roll, are erroneous by reason of overvaluation. The total assessment on the current tax rolls is $344 ,700. 00, both land and building. The extent of overvaluation is $288 ,900. 00. 7 . Your petitioner is aggrieved and injured by the said overassessment and the unequal 'and- "1 egaT""assessmerrt!-wan&—will be�, - injured thereby and will be required to pay .taxes which it could not be required by law to pay if said assessment had been made correctly and properly; and such unjust, unequal , excessive and illegal assessment will subject your petitioner to the payment of more taxes than it is legally required to pay. 8 . No previous application has been made for the relief herein sought and thirty (30) days have not elapsed since the final completion and filing of the said assessment roll as aforesaid. WHEREFORE, your petitioner prays for an Order directing the Respondents to reassess the property of petitioner and to correct the assessment upon the roll in such manner as shall be in accordance with law and as shall make said assessment conform to the valuation and assessment of other property upon the same roll and shall secure equality of assessment and that this Court take evidence to enable your petitioner to show the unequal, unjust, erroneous and illegal assessment against it and upon its property and that petitioner may have such other and further relief as may be just, with the costs and disbursements of this proceeding. Dated: September 1978 ASSOCIATED-EAST LE_NZTIJG CORP. Dav d T. Savage,-,Wi q-Pref rlent `:4 S Jv y L- •1 COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA ) ss. ; COUNTY OF MONTGOMERY ) David T. Savage, being duly sworn, deposes and says; deponent is the Vice-President of ASSOCIATED-EAST LENDING CORP. , the petitioner in the within action; deponent has read the foregoing petition and knows the contents thereof; and the same is true to deponent' s own knowledge, except as to the matters therein stated to be alleged upon information and belief, and as to those, matters deponent believes it to be true. This verifica- tion is made by deponent because Associated-East Lending Corp. is a corporation and deponent is an officer thereof. The grounds of deponent' s belief as to all matters in the said petition not stated upon his own knowledge are investigation which deponent has caused to be made concerning the subject matte of this petition and information acquired by deponent in the cour e of his duties as an officer of said corporation and from the book and records of said corporation. David T. Savage Sworn to before me this day of September, 1978. Notary 'Public CATHERiiNE M.CORBETT,Notary Puhr'* lower Mericn T:p., Montgomery Co., Pe,, h'y Cor,i�ili:::;ioa Expuis March 29, 14�? JRECE1VED. GEORGE C. STANKEVICH '4� ' 1978 ATTORNEY AT LAW -- SOUZOID 1 MAIN ROAD WEST NECK ROAD SOUTHOLD, N. T. 11971 SHELTER ISLAND, N. T., 11964 (516) 765.3636 1516) 749.1326 September 29 , 1978 Board of Assessors Town of Southold Main Road Southold, New York 11.971 Re : Mitchell v. Town of Southold Dear Sirs : Pursuant to New York Real Property Tax Law $708, I hereby serve three [3] copies of the Notice of Petition and Petition regarding the above-entitled matter. Pleases return a receipted copy of this letter acknowledging receipt of the above. S 'ncerely yours George C. Stankevich Received: �/ _ C GCS :kam Enclosures it z r isi i.Yuu w��1 iii i r�m���1i r���o��1 o 11,ui 1�1 1 ii t( i a Ge SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK. COUNTY' OF SUFFOLK ---------------------------------------------x In the Matter of the Application of y HARRY J. MITCHELL and PAULINE MITCHELL, Petitioner (s) , INDEX # -against- MELVIN A. KELSEY, JR. , CHAI THAN, �:ENRY R MOTSA, and CHARLES C. WATTS, constituting NOTICE OF the BOARD OF ASSESSORS of the TOWN OF PETITION !. SOUTHOLD, County of Suffolk, State of New York, Respondent (s) , For a Review of a Tax Assessment under Article VII of the Real. Property Tax Law. w! ----------------------------------------------x F S I R S �r PLEASE TAKE NOTICE, that upon the Petitioner (s) annexed Petition, verified the �q day of September, 1978, an applica- h tion will be made to Special Term Part IV of the Supreme Court of the State of New York , to be held in and for the County of Suffolk, at the Supreme Court Building, Veterans Memorial High- way, Hauppauge , New York 11787 , on the 36 day of October, 1978 , or as soon thereafter as counsel can be heard for a review under Article VII of the Real Property Tax Law of the assessment for the Tax Year 1978-1979 , upon certain real property the Peti- tioner(s) more fully set forth and described in said Petition, F' and for such other and further relief_ as this Court may deem j, just and proper. s; Dated: September Z y , 1978 / Yours , etc. GEORGE C. STANKEVICH, ESQ. Attorney for Petitioner(s) b MAIN ROAD ' SOUTHOLD, NEW YORK 11971 9 (516) 765-3838 W.+ianise.{iwY +rA„4g WL.jLI .�i ll�.11W II 1lii6u11 n.Yi�i��ilW i dl _ 6 1 ° SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK COUNTY OF SUFFOLK --------------------------------------------X In the Matter of the Application of HARRY J. MITCHELL and PAULINE MITCHELL, k Petitioner (s) , INDEX # -against- PETITION MELVIN A. KELSEY, JR. , CHAIRMAN, HENRY MOISA, and CHARLES C. WATTS , constituting jk the BOARD OF ASSESSORS of the TOWN OF I` SOUTHOLD, County of Suffolk, State of y New York, Respondents, For a Review of a Tax Assessment under Article VII of the Real Property Tax Law. ---------------------------------------------x TO THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK, COUNTY OF SUFFOLK FIRST CAUSE OF ACTION k FIRST - At all times mentioned herein, the Petitioner(s) , were and are individual (s) or corporation(s) , residents (s) and/or doing business in the Town of Southold, County of Suffolk , State of New York. €' SECOND At all times mentioned herein, the Petitioner (s) , HARRY J. MITCHEIA= and PAULINE MITCHELL, a were and 'are the owner(s) of certain real property and premises situate in the Town of Southold, County of Suffolk, State of New York, known and designated on the Southold Town Assessment Role and Tax Map as District 1001 , Section 005 , Y f Block 004 , Lot (s) 10 , 11 , 12 , 13, 14 , 16 , and 40 . Y THIRD - At all times mentioned herein, k the Respondents constituted the Board of Assessors of the Town of Southold, County of Suffolk,. State of New York. ' y��a�lii�mIY168�IWa��al�l;����yl'Sli.�'i�N�InI�IIIYd_��Y�r�Vlil nnJna1. .�y,ll i l .l i ii i IIIi ii uill li lill 11 I i i 1 L i I (1 } FOURTH - Upon information and belief the Respondents filed the tentative assessment role for the Tax Year 1978-1979 for the Town of Southold, County of Suffolk, t" State of New York, and published due notice thereof pursuant I4, to Suffolk County Tax Act §5 , New York Real Property Tax Law §506 . FIFTH - Upon information and belief the valuation of the Petitioner (s) ' premises for the Tax Year 1978 -1979 on the tentative tax role for the Town of Southold, e County of Suffolk, State of New York was $81 ,200 . 00 . SIXTH - The Petitioner(s) filed a grievance and protested the valuation of their premises on the tentative y tax role for the Tax Year 1978--1979 for the Town of Southold, County of Suffolk, State of New York, before the Town of Southold Board of Review of Assessments on the grounds of inequality and/or over-valuation and/or illegality pursuant to Suffolk County Tax Act §5 , New York Real Property Tax Law i §512. SEVENTH - Upon information and belief the Respondents filed the completed assessment role for the Tax Year 19'78-1979 for the Town of Southold, County of Suffolk, 3 State of New York , and published due notice thereof pursuant s to Suffolk County Tax Act §6 , New York Real Property Tax Law §516 . �t EIGHTH - Upon information and belief the valuation of the Petitioner (s) ' premises on the completed I !p iY a' t F u.� '��...I�i A�i ..ii.l.iLitlriih'viol.ri.Allln�ni:.er.11n�neluwu�nreu.r � I } • � a lil assessment role for the Tax Year 1978-1979 for the Town of Southold, County of Suffolk, State of New York, was $73,200.00 . NINTH - The valuation of the Petitioner(s) ' # premises by the Respondents on the completed assessment role for the Tax Year 1978-1979 for the Town of Southold, County of Suffolk, State of New York, is unequal and said assessment has kp i;: been made at a higher proportionate valuation than the assess- i i ment of other properties on the same tax role by the Respondents; s. and it is necessary that the assessment of the Petitioner (s) ' premises be reduced to $32 ,500 . 00 , Total Land and Buildings ih in order that it be made proportionate to the assessments 5) elsewhere in the Town of Southold; and your Petitioner(s) are therefor aggrieved and are and will be injured by the in- A equality of said assessment. TENTH - This Petition was commenced within F^ j thirty [30] days after the final completion, filing, and pub- . r. i lication of the Notice of Assessment Role containing the N Petitioner (s) ' assessment complained of herein, and no prior proceeding has been brought by the Petitioner (s) for the same g or similar relief as herein demanded. li SECOND .CAUSE OF ACTION ELEVENTH Pursuant to N.Y.C.P.L.R. R3014 , paragraphs FIRST, SECOND, THIRD, FOURTH, FIFTH, SIXTH, SEVENTH, EIGHTH, NINTH, and TENTH are hereby repeated and realleged as s r if here stated in full . 1; t ._ '�.�Ilp lill illi�I�NI��IJ�II II`I�illll�ll�ll.l.111 I II II}..�11IIII�I���V���i. I i i..� I. t� �� IMi��l7�''w1'I�iPi'/I�IIIYMII�II�Mllll ll�lwllllllllllllllll I I I� r s ,t c TWELFTH - The valuation of the Petitioner (s) ' t premises by the Respondents on the completed assessment role 3 for the Tax Year 1978-1979 for the Town of Southold, County 1 t of Suffolk, State of New York is excessive and therefore f constitutes over-valuation, and it is necessary that the assessment of the Petitioner(s) ' premises be reduced to $32 ,500 . 00 , Total Land and Buildings , in order that it be property assessed; and your Petitioner (s) are therefor aggrieved and are and will be injured by the over-valuation of said assessment. THIRD CAUSE OF ACTION THIRTEENTH - Pursuant to N.Y.C.P.L. R. R30141 1 paragraphs FIRST, SECOND, THIRD, FOURTH, FIFTH, SIXTH, SEVENTH, k EIGHTH, NINTH, TENTH, ELEVENTH, and TWELFTH are hereby repeated F and realleged as if here stated in full . FOURTEENTH - The valuation of the Petitioner (s) ' i' premises and all other premises on the completed assessment role s' for the Tax Year 1978-1979 for the Town of Southold, County of Suffolk, State of New York, is illegal by virtue of being . made at less than the full value contrary to New York Real Property Tax Law 5305 , Hellerstein v. Islip, 37 NY 2d 1 and is also otherwise illegal in the methods and procedures used k4 by the Respondents , and your Petitioner (s) are aggrieved and are and will be injured by the illegality of said assessment. i d;y -I °"I°�I.�`���i '��I liiiuulrrl�+'u plluVl�iq"w1`rilp�il�l In�i�uril�liueuui��ni�ili�L'L'�i�.i i i d I I i I i i II WHEREFORE, your Petitioner (s) pray; [1] that the a' ' said assessment role be corrected and the assessment against your Petitioner(s) for said real property be stricken from the assessment role for the Tax Year 1978-1979 for the Town of rSouthold, County of Suffolk, State of New York, or be reduced s F �!j to a proper amount and properly equalized with the assessments of the other real properties on the same role, and/or [2) that the over-valuation of the assessment of the Petitioner(s) ' premises on the assessment role for the Tax Year 1978-1979 for the Town of Southold, County of Suffolk, State of New York be reduced to a proper amount, [3) that the entire assessment role for the Town of Southold, County of Suffolk, State of New F York be stricken or corrected to provide full valuation of all properties listed thereon, and/or [41 that the assessment methods and procedures used by the Respondents in valuing the Petitioner(s) ' premises on the assessment role for the Tax Year 1978-1979 for the Town of Southold, County of Suffolk, State of f' New York, be ruled illegal and improper, and that the assess- ment of the Petitioner(s) ' premises be adjusted accordingly, 4 [5] that the Court take evidence or cause the same to be taken to enable your Petitioner(s) to show the inequality, over- valuation, illegality and error of said assessments against the Petitioner (s) ' premises and [6] that your Petitioner (s) have Wy "'""�� r��L.��'��Jm��ii�rri■Jd�n..y.�V3L..V�Ll�rlr�li .�.....:._ „. . i ay a � � = a e EF such other and further relief as this Court may deem just and proper. Dated: September Z- 1978. PiuMINE MITCHELL Petitioner t i u U. _ iLAy m I �r�� rte►_�w n����r,r��+..�.ri IIIIIi ��n.rrirr.w N��d�ralu��4L'.�LLi�u���l��danirr �Lnno �nuti�l�� �i �i�nunVnlupipu�luiinl li�nlim�ui�i�linnnuo�iu�u�e�. STAVE OF NEW YORK; COUNTY OF CERTIFICATION BY ATTORNEY The undersPgned, 8h attorney admitted to practice in the courts of New York State, certifies thaf the within has been compared by the undersigned with the original and found to be a true and complete copy. Dated STATE OF NEW YORK, COUNTY OF ATTORNEY'S AFFIRMATION The undersigned, an attorney admitted to practice in the court' of New York State, shows: that deponent is the attorney(s) of record for in the within action; that deponent has read the foregoing and knows the contents thereof; that the same is true to deponent's own knowledge, except as to the matters therein stated to be alleged on information and belief, and that as to those matters deponent believes it to be true. Deponent further says that the reason this verification is made by deponent and not by The grounds of deponent's belief as to all matters not stated upon deponent's knowledge are as follows: The undersigned affirms that the foregoing statements are true, under the penalties of perjury. Dated: ---- -- --- -- STATE OF NEW YORK, COUNTY OF SUFFOLK ss.: INDIVIDUAL VERIFICATION PAULINE MITCHELL being duly sworn, deposes and says that deponent is the Petitioner in the within action; that deponent has read the foregoing Petition and knows the contents thereof; that the same is true to deponent's own knowledge, except as to the matters therein stated to be alleged on informa- tion and belief, and that as to those matters deponent believes it to be true. Sworn to before me, this ay day of Ao'l 19 7�------ �2�' ANNE C.TRAUTMAN PAULINE MITCHELL .. Nota Public State of N.Y. No. 62-4620206 Qualified in Suffolk CoUnIt— Term Exp9W1ftr0%l7ORK, COUNTY OF SS.. CORPORATE VERIFICATION being duly sworn, deposes and says that deponent is the of the corporation named in the within action; that deponent has_ read the foregoing and knows the contents thereof; and that the same is true to deponent's own knowledge, except as to the matters therein stated to be alleged upon information and belief, and as to those matters deponent believes it to be true. This verification is made by deponent because is a corporation. Deponent is an officer thereof, to-wit, its The grounds of deponent's belief as to all matters not stated ipn- deponent's knowledge are as follows: Sworn to before me, this day of 19 STATE OF NEW YORK, COUNTY OF SS.: AFFIDAVIT OF SERVICE 6Y MAIL being duly sworn, deposes and says, that deponent is riot a party tc the action, is over 18 years of age and residas at I , That on the day of 19 deponent served the within upon attorney(s) for in this action, at the address designated by said attorney(s) for that purpose by depositing a true copy of same enclosed in a postpaid properly addressed wrapper, in — a post office — official depository under the exclusive care and custody of the United States post office department within the State of New York. Sworn to before me, this day of 19 STATE OF NEW YORK, COUNTY OF CERTIFICATION BY ATTORNEY The undersigned, an attorney admitted to practice in the courts of New York State, certifies thaf the within has been compared by the undersigned with the original and found to be a true and complete copy. Dated STATE OF NEW YORK, COUNTY OF ATTORNEY's AFFIRMATION The undersigned, an attorney admitted to practice in the courts of New York State, shows: that deponent is the attorney(s) of record for in the within action; that deponent has read the foregoing and knows the contents thereof; that the same is true to deponent's own knowledge, except as to the matters therein stated to be alleged on information and belief, and that as to those matters deponent believes it to be true. Deponent further says that the reason this verification is made by deponent and not by The grounds of deponent's belief as to all matters not stated upon deponent's knowledge are as follows: The undersigned affirms that the foregoing statements are true, under the penalties of perjury. Dated: STATE OF NEW YORK, COUNTY OF ss.: INDIVIDUAL VERIFICATION being duly sworn, deposes and says that deponent is the in the within action; that deponent has read the foregoing and knows the contents thereof; that the same is true to deponent's own knowledge, except as to the matters therein s ted to be alleged on informa- tion and belief, and that as to those matters deponent believes it to be true. Sworn tobe ore me, this day of 19 STATE O NEW YORK, COUNTY OF SS.. CORPORATE VERIFICATION being duly sworn, deposes and says that deponent is the of the corporation named in the within action; that deponent has. read the foregoing and knows the contents thereof; and that the same is true to deponent's own knowledge, except as to the matters therein stated to be alleged upon infcrmation and beiief, and as to those matters deponent believes it to be true. This verification is made by deponent because is a corporation. Deponent is an officer thereof, to-wit, its The grounds of deponent's belief as to ail matters not stated upon deponent's knowledge are as follows: Sworn to before me, this day of 14 STATE OF NEW YORK, COUNTY OF ss.: AFFIDAVIT OF SERVICE BY MAIL being duly sworn, deposes and says, that deponent is not a party tc the action, is over 18 years of age and resides at , That on the day of 19 deponent served the within upon attorney(s) for in this action, at the address designated by said attorney(s) for that purpose by depositing a true copy of same enclosed in a postpaid properly addressed wrapper, in — a post office — official depository under the exclusive care and custody of the United States post office department within the State of New York. File Index No. 633 P 1978 Year 19 ,. l STATE OF NEW YORK « • « SURROGATE'S COURT COUNTY OF sbrrofk _. PROBATE PROCEEDING, WILL OF HARRY MITCHELL a/k/a HARRY JAMES MITCHELL, Deceased. ORDER FRAMING ISSUES To FREDERIC P. RICH, ESQ. 52965 Main Road Southold, New York 11971 Attorney(s) for Proponents Service of a copy of the within is hereby admitted Dated, Attorney(s) for Sir:—Please take notice NOTICE OF ENTRY that the within is a (certified true copy of a duly entered in the office of a clerk of the within named court on 19 NOTICE OF SETTLEMENT that an order of which the within is a true copy will be presented for settlement to the HON. ERNEST L. SIGNORELLI one of the judges of the within named Court, at SUFFOLK COUNTY SURROGATE 'S COURT on the 2nd day of October 1978 at 9 :30 A. M. Dated, September 29, 1978 Yours, etc. GEORGE C. STANKEVICH ATTORNEY ATA L W Attorneys for To MAIN ROAD Attorney(s) for SOUTHOLD, N. Y. 11971 (516) 765-3838 WEST NECK ROAD SHELTER ISLAND. N. Y 11904 (516) 749-1328 OC # 18x1 SUPREME COURT�OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK P- 9046A COUNTY OF SUFFOLK In the Matter of 235 MILL STREET, INC. i Petitioner, PETITION -against- Index No. !t f THE BOARD OF ASSESSORS OF THE t TON OF SOUTHOLD, Respondent. TO THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK% The petitioner above named, by his attorneys, KOEPPEL SOMMER LESNICK& MARTONE,_ respectfully alleges as follows: 1. At all times herein mentioned, petitioner was and still is a taxpayer of the municipality whose Board of Assessors is the respondent herein (hereinafter referred to as "the assessing jurisdiction") and is an aggrieved party with respect to the assessment within the meaning of§ 706, Real Property Tax Law, State of New York. 2. The respondent has heretofore prepared, completed and perfected, purportedly according to law, /an ssessment roll for the assessing jurisdiction, for the tax year !a"? =f ,� r�-��y ;�� , which assessment roil included an assessment for your petitioner's ii4 property, described in column I and assessed as set forth in column II of the following schedule% _- ** a�-rj _'13_�'�rr� Or Ae-�., �••,�.:� 'Zn^1.0`9 Column I Column II Column III Column IV I Column V Town Southold Extent of Village Greenport Original Claimed Confirmed_ Inequality S.D. Valuation I Valuation Valuation and/or --- Overvaluation Sec. Block Lot ` A Land $ 18, 900 i $ 9,450 -* - $ 9,450 Parcel 739 item No G9�7n1 T..►.1 C Z7 nnn c � � nnn i* C �r nn.. - - - - av�os tir �c. ,vvv T 1K),VVV T LK) VVV B Land $ $ * $ S f Ada06St Total V--!-J --- C vl t(1 � -0 Land Total $ $ * !$ D Land --- -- ------- Total * Same as Column II except as otherwise indicated. V. Your petitioner duly made and filed with respondent a written application and statement under oath, to have said assessed valuation of said real property corrected and revised, specifying therein the respect in which the assessment complained of was incorrect, and which application and statement sought to reduce the assessment com- plained of as set forth in column III of paragraph 2 above. application aIIu statement are hereby referred to and made part of this application as though fully set forth herein. 4. Upon information and belief, a final decision and determination on the said appli- cation and statement were duly rendered by the respondent who failed and refused to correct or reduce the said assessment as requested and confirmed the said assessed valuation of petitioner's property as set forth in column IV of paragraph 2 above. 5. Thirty (30) days have not elapsed since the filing of the certified copy of the completed and verified assessment roll as required by law. 6. The said assessment of your petitioner's property is erroneous upon the following grounds: (a) Overvaluation (to the extent set forth in column V of paragraph 2 above) ; (b) inequality (to the extent set forth �n column V of paragraph 2 above) , in that it has been made at a higher proportionate value than the assessment of other real prop- erty in the assessing jurisdiction made by the respondent; the specified instances of such inequality are the assessments of all of the real property in the assessing jur- isdiction and each and every parcel thereof; and/or, as required by RPTL §307, that said assessment has been made at a higher proportionate valuation than the assessment of other taxable real property of the same major type, as determined by the state board of equalization and assessment pursuant to §1200 RPT L. 7. Your petitioner is aggrieved and injured by said unjust, unequal, excessive, ille- gal and erroneous assessment, and will be required to pay a greater amount and propor- tion of taxes than your petitioner would be required to pay if the said assessment had been just and equal. 8. No provision is made by law for an appeal or other relief from the final determina- tion of the respondent except by a review by petition to the Supreme Court, and no pre- vious application for the relief herein asked has been made to any court or judge. 9. If there is more than one petitioner herein, the word "petitioner" shall mean "petitioners" or "each of petitioners," as the context requires. WHEREFORE, your petitioner prays that the Supreme Court review and correct on the merits the aforementioned final determination of the respondent on the grounds set forth in this petition, and that the said Court take evidence to enable your petitioner to show the unjust, unequal, excessive, illegal and erroneous assessment of the said real prop- erty to the end that the assessment may be reduced to the full, true and market value thereof for land and improvements, and to a valuation proportionate to the assessments of other real property assessed on the same rolls for the same year, so that equality of assessments will result, and for such other and further relief as the Court may deem proper, together with the costs and disbursements of this proceeding. KOEPPEL SOMMER LESNICK & MARTONE Attorneys for Petitioner 220 Old Country Road Mineola, New York 11501 SUPtREI°Z' COURT SUFFOLK COUN'T'Y 18 x 1 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - X OC JP-9046A In the Matter of NOTICE ASID PETITION 235 MILL STREET, INC. , Index No. Tax Year Petitioner, -against- '7 THE BOARD OF ASSESSORS AND 7r1E BO..AM OF ASSESSMENT REVIEW OF THE TOWN OF - SOUTHOLD, its`:o idents. KOEPPEL SalME R LESNIG� & MA.t{TONE, ., Attorneys for Petitioner 220 Old Country Road, Mineola, Ne-• ork 11501 (516) 747-6300 VERIFICATION STATE OF NEW YORK, COUN'T'Y OF NASSAU) ss.: The undersigned being duly scxorn, deposes and says: I ain the agent for the peti- tioner herein. I have read the foregoing petition and know the contents thereof; the same is true to my own knowledge, except as to matters therein stated to be alleged upon information and belief and, that as to those matters, I believe it to be true. The reason this verification is made by me ancl-not.by pe 'tioner that all the material allegations (except those as to maer of dub is recgz�d of said petition are within my personal knowledge. � 71f / f' r-' Sworn to before me Pais r ' day19 of�� �"1i /1 i%fjy Xf ' _• , ,, rt��,,of NOTICE OF PETITION TO THE RESPONDENTS NAMED 44'=: PLEASE TAKE NOTICE THAT, upon the annexed veri- fied petition, an application will be made, pursuant to the provisions of the Real Property Tax Law,at a Special Term for Tax Certtiorari of this Court, to be held at the courthouse thereof, on -:5' ' ` ' " - , 19 , at 9:30 a.m. , or as soon there- after as counsel can be heard, for the relief prayed for in said petition, upon the grounds set forth therein, and for such other and further relief as may be just and proper in the p emises. Dated: vnr+rnnr et-,kAKmr) r Vcnrrr W r. n ?�'>7Y TP - _ Attornev-q for Petitioner 11vi.Crl:.a� wi-.-u.auuvi..iu. u .... ..i.... .., • -'-------t— --- ------- 220 Old Country Road, Mineola, New York 11501 (516) 747-6300 F 3c P 9046A j Southold )-9047A AUTHORIZATION The undersigned , being an aggrieved person within the mean— ing of the Real Property Tax Law, or an officer or partner of such aggrieved person, 'hereby authorizes Koeppel Sommer Lesnick & Martone or any attorney employed by such firm, to act as our agent to : ,,zry (1) File and serve a statement (also known as a complaint or protest) pursuant to Section 512 (1) of the RPTL , specifying the respect in which the assessment of the property listed below is illegal , erroneous , or unequal ; and (2) Verify, serve and file a petition for review of real property assessment pursuant to Article 7 of the Real Property Tax Law. This authorization applies to the following property : a . County: Suffolk Town/City : Southold Village (if applicable) : Greenport b. Address: C. Section : Block : Lot : d. Item No. (if applicable) : 596201, Parcel 739 e . Last known assessed valuation: $52 , 000 Dated : (Name of Aggrieved Person , i . e . , owner , tenant , etc . ) By G � (Indicate title if aggrieved person is not a natural person) SUPFE-, OCURr SUFFOLK CGu=1TY P- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -• - - - X OC#9443B In the mat-ter of Pr,, TION VERA MAYER, Index No. Tax Year Petitioner, t ' - against-THE-E BC,'--RD OF ASSESSORS AND rra BOARD l OF FD.VTEYnT OE TIHE TOWN OF SOUTHOLD, Respondents. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - X The petitioner above na7ied, by his attorneys, KOEPPEL SCI:AER LESNICK & rMPT=, , resxct`ully alleges as follows: 1. At all times herein mentioned, petitioner was and still is a taxpayer of the municipality whose Boated of Assessors is the respondent herein (hereinafter referred to as "the assessing jurisdiction") and is an aggrieved party with respect to the assessment within the mzaning of §706, Real Property Tax law, State of New York. 2. Tze respandents have heretofore prepared, carlpleted and perfected, purportedly y acwr-2--rig to 1.ww, an assessrmnt roll for the assessing jurisdiction, for the tax year 14 + (19`'x% ) , whic'z assesst roll included an assessnerit for petitioner's real prcperty, described in Column I and assessed as set forth in Column II of the fol la.:ung schedule: Col '<n I Coll= II Coles III Colas= IV Colmm V Tca,-,i Southold Village Original Clair ed Confi r ed Extent of In- Valuation Valuation Valuation equality and/or Sec. Block Int Overvaluation Altem 81271 Lard $ 3,300 $ 1,500 * $ 1,800 Tax Map 1000:002- Lbtal $,22, 000 $- 10, 775 * $ 11, 225 01- B Item # 81270 La*IL $ 4 , 800 $ 2, 400 * $ 2, 400 Tax Map 1000:002 01 0 $d=al $ 4. 800 $ 2,400 * $ 2, 400 C - L��d $ �$ * $ Total $ $ * $ D Land $ $ * $ Total $ $ * $ Total $ $ * $ Tc,ta 1 $ $ * $ * Sarle as Coltnm II e:--.cert as otherwise indicated. ` 3. Your petitioner duly made and filed with respondent a written application and statement under oath, to have said assessed valuation of said real property corrected and revised, specifying therein the respect in which the assessment complained of was incorrect, and which application and statement sought to reduce the assessment com- plained of as set forth in column III of paragraph 2 above. The said application and statement are hereby referred to and made part of this application as though fully set forth herein. 4. Upon information and belief, a final decision and determination on the said appli- cation and statement were duly rendered by the respondent who failed and refused to correct or reduce the said assessment as requested and confirmed the said assessed valuation of petitioner's property as set forth in column IV of paragraph 2 above. 5. Thirty (30) days have not elapsed since the filing of the certified copy of the completed and verified assessment roll as required by law. 6. The said assessment of your petitioner's property is erroneous upon the following grounds: (a) Overvaluation (to the extent set forth in column V of paragraph 2 above) ; (b) Inequality (to the extent set forth in column V of paragraph 2 above) , in that it has been made at a higher proportionate value than the assessment of other real prop- erty in the assessing jurisdiction made by the respondent; the specified instances of such inequality are the assessments of all of the real property in the assessing jur- isdiction and each and every parcel thereof; and/or, as required by RPTL §307, that said assessment has been made at a higher proportionate valuation than the assessment of other taxable real property of the same major type, as determined by the state board of equalization and assessment pursuant to §1200 RPTL. 7. Your petitioner is aggrieved and injured by said unjust, unequal, excessive, ille- gal and erroneous assessment, and will be required to pay a greater amount and propor- tion of taxes than your petitioner would be required to pay if the said assessment had been just and equal. 8. No provision is made by law for an appeal or other relief from the final determina- tion of the respondent except by a review by petition to the Supreme Court, and no pre- vious application for the relief herein asked has been made to any court or judge. 9. If there is more than one petitioner herein, the word "petitioner" shall mean "petitioners" or "each of petitioners," as the context requires. WHEREFORE, your petitioner prays that the Supreme Court review and correct on the merits the aforementioned final determination of the respondent on the grounds set forth in this petition, and that the said Court take evidence to enable your petitioner to show the unjust, unequal, excessive, illegal and erroneous assessment of the said real prop- erty to the end that the assessment may be reduced to the full, true and market value thereof for land and improvements, and to a valuation proportionate to the assessments of other real property assessed on the same rolls for the same year, so that equality of assessments will result, and for such other and further relief as the Court may deem proper, together with the costs and disbursements of this proceeding. KOEPPEL SOMMER LESNICK & MARTONE Attorneys for Petitioner 220 Old Country Road Mineola, New York 11501 SU?=.E] COURT SUFFOLK CXL%7TY - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - X OC 9P 9443B In the Matter of NOTICE AMID PETITION VERA SAYER, : Index No. Tax Year Petitioner, / -against- ' 7y T':-1E BOARD OF ASSESSORS AND THE BOARD OF ASSESS= REVIEW OF THE TOWN OF SOUTHOLD, Respondents. - - - -- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - X KOEPPEL S=N ER LESNICK & t-FR1ONIE, , Attorneys for Petitioner 220 Old Country Road, Mineola, Nf;: zork 11501 (516) 747-6300 VERIFICATION SnTE OF N91 YORK, COMM OF NASSAU) ss.: The undersigned being duly sworn, deposes and says: I am the agent for the peti- tioner herein. I have read the foregoing petition and know the contents thereof; the same is true to my own knowledge, except as to matters therein stated to be alleged upon information and belief and, that as to those mats, I believe it to be true. The reason this verification is made by me and,not .by petitioner is that all the material allegations (except those as to maatters.of public record) of said petition are within my personal knowledge. Sworn to before me this day of 1�� ifs-�•-�' ` "• f -''�rf'�� \,tN ?A£R 1NGOLO . . Statc o�he,w Yo�,� w ;°`c`, i�ao NOTICE OF PETITION 30, TO TIE RESPONDENTS NA.�ED WIT=: PLEASE TAIL NOTICE THAT, upon the annexed veri- fied petition, an application will be made, pursuant to the provisions of the Real Property Tax Law,at a Special Term for Tax Certiorari of this Court, to be held at the courthouse thereof, on r ir,44 > '' , 19 , at 9:30 a.m., or as soon there- after as counsel can be heard, for the relief prayed for in said petition, upon the grounds set forth therein, and for such other and further relief as may be just and proper in the premises. Dated KOEP. PEL SOi^21ER LE.SNICK & MARTCNE, , Attorneys for Petitioner 220 Old Country Road, Mineola, New York 11501 (516) 747-6300 F 3c 9443B • Southold AUTHORIZATION The undersigned , being an aggrieved person within the mean— ing of the Real Property Tax Law, or an officer or partner of such aggrieved person, 'hereby authorizes Koeppel Sommer Lesnick & Martone or any attorney employed by such firm, to act as our agent to : (1) File and serve a statement (also known as a complaint or protest) pursuant to Section 512 (1) of the RPTL , specifying the respect in which the assessment of the property listed below is illegal , erroneous , or unequal ; and (2) Verify, serve and file a petition for review of real property assessment pursuant to Article 7 of the Real Property Tax Law. This authorization applies to the following property : a. County : Suffolk Town/City : Southold Village (if applicable) : b. Address: C. Section: Block: Lot : d. Item No. (if applicable) : 81271 - 81270 e . Last known assessed valuation: $22,000 - $4,800 Dated : (Name of Aggrieved Person , owner , tenant , etc . ) By (Indicate title if aggrieved person is not a natural person) SU?r�- �r' C= SUFFOLK CO=1 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - X OC 12-9063A In the Matter of PETITION PAWLING VIEWS INC . , Index tiro. Tax Year Petitioner, -against- I ? TFE BOARD OF ASSESSORS AMID T:IE BQkRD Or ASSESS..NENT F;ETIE W OF TcH Town of Southold Respondents. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - X The petitioner above named, by his attorneys, KOEPPEL SONAR LESNICK & respectfully alleges as follows: 1. At all times herein mentioned, petitioner was and still is a taxpayer of the municipality whose Board of Assessors is the respondent herein (hereinafter referred to as "the assessing jurisdiction") and is an aggrieved party with respect to the assessment within the meaning of §706, Real Property Tax Law, State of Newyork. 2. The respondents have heretofore prepared, eattpleted and perfected, purportedly according to law, an assessment roll for the assessing jurisdiction, for the tax year 19"! (19';.� , which assessment roll included an assessment for petitioner's real property, described in Colurm I and assessed as set forth in Column II of the following schedule: Col=m I Coiizm II Column III Column IV Columm V Town Southold Village g,"dyt- Original Claimed Confizmed Extent of in- S.D. Valuation Valuation Valuation equality and/or Sec. Block lot Overvaluation, A Item # Land $ $ * $ #578070 Total $ 11,000 $ 5,500 * $ 5,500 N: Front St . IWnd $ $ * $ E & S :Halpa Total $ $ * $ X W: Barth Real yLand $ $ * $ Corp. Total $ $ * $ E : G.D. Wein- ID stein Land. $ $ * $ S : G.D. ;reins einem $ $ * $ Q� E Land $ $ * $ Total $ $ * $ F Laid $ $ * $ Total $ $ * $ * Same as Colum II except as otherwise indicated. F 3a 3. Your petitioner duly made and filed with respondent a written application and statement under oath, to have said assessed valuation of said real property corrected and revised, specifying therein the respect in which the assessment complained of was incorrect, and which application and statement sought to reduce the assessmo-nt com- plained of as set forth in column III of paragraph 2 above. The said application and statement are hereby referred to and made part of this application as though fully set forth herein. 4. Upon information and belief, a final decision and determination on the said appli- cation and statement were duly rendered by the respondent who failed and refused to correct or reduce the said assessment as requested and confirmed the said assessed valuation of petitioner's property as set forth in column IV of paragraph 2 above. 5. Thirty (30) days have not elapsed since the filing of the certified copy of the completed and verified assessment roll as required by law. 6. The said assessment of your petitioner's property is erroneous upon the following grounds: (a) Overvaluation (to the extent set forth in column V of paragraph 2 above) ; (b) Inequality (to the extent set forth in column V of paragraph 2 above) , in that it has been made at a higher proportionate value than the assessment of other real prop- erty in the assessing jurisdiction made by the respondent; the specified instances of such inequality are the assessments of all of the real property in the assessing jur- isdiction and each and every parcel thereof; and/or, as required by RPTL §307, that said assessment has been made at a higher proportionate valuation than the assessment of other taxable real property of the same major type, as determined by the state board of equalization and assessment pursuant to §1200 RPTL. 7. Your petitioner is aggrieved and injured by said unjust, unequal, excessive, ille- gal and erroneous assessment, and will be required to pay a greater amount and propor- tion of taxes than your petitioner would be required to pay if the said assessment had been just and equal. 8. No provision is made by law for an appeal or other relief from the final determina- tion of the respondent except by a review by petition to the Supreme Court, and no pre- vious application for the relief herein asked has been made to any court or judge. 9. If there is more than one petitioner herein, the word "petitioner" shall mean "petitioners" or "each of petitioners," as the context requires. WHEREFORE, your petitioner prays that the Supreme Court review and correct on the merits the aforementioned final determination of the respondent on the grounds set forth in this petition, and that the said Court take evidence to enable your petitioner to show the unjust, unequal, excessive, illegal and erroneous assessment of the said real prop- erty to the end that the assessment may be reduced to the full, true and market value thereof for land and improvements, and to a valuation proportionate to the assessments of other real property assessed on the same rolls for the same year, so that equality of assessments will result, and for such other and further relief as the Court may deem proper, together with the costs and disbursements of this proceeding. KOEPPEL SOMMER LFSNICK & MARTONE Attorneys for Petitioner 220 Old Country Road Mineola, New York 11501 SUPR^-IE COURT SUFFOLK COUNTY 18x2 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - X UC #p-9063A Tn the Matter of NOTICE AND PETITICN. PAWLING VIEWS , INC. Index No. Tax Year Petitioner, -against- THE against-T E BOARD OF ASSESSORS AND THE BOARD OF ASSESS%SE<^1T REW94 OF THE Town of Southold Respondents. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - X KOEPPEL SCM ER LESN, ICK & MARIMIE, , Attorneys for Petitioner 220 Old Country Road, Mineola, New York 11501 (516) 747-6300 VERIFICATION STATE OF NEW YORK, CCUNTY OF NASSAU) ss. : The undersigned being duly sworn, deposes and says: I am the agent for the peti- tioner herein. I have read the foregoing petition and know the contents thereof; the sa^ie is true to my own knowledge, except as to matters therein stated to be alleged upon information and belief and, that as to those matters_,_ I believe it to be true. The reason this verification is made by me and titioner is that all the material allegations (except those as to mat r o lic e ord) of said petition are wit!zin my personal knowledge. Scorn to before me j/ttu.s t " day of \�� a'i ti F;)BLIC, c' e of " C 5 X53in .0_" NO'T'ICE' OF PETITION Tb TI-JE RESPONDENTS NAS WITHIN: PLEASE TAKE NO`T'ICE THAT, upon the annexed veri- fied petition, an application will be made, pursuant to the provisions of the Real Property Tax Law,at a Special Term for Tax Certiorari of this Court, to be held at the courthouse thereof, on %}'yf t' 19 at 9:30 a.m. , or as soon there- after as counsel can be heard, for �e relief prayed for in said petition, upon the grounds set forth therein, and for such other and further relief as may be just and proper in the premises. Dated: -, i . 0 KOEPPEL SCHER LFSNTICK & MAFCUC TE, Attorneys for Petitioner 220 Old Country Read, Mineola, New York 11501 (516) 747-6300 F 3c 9063A Southold AUTHORIZATION The undersigned , being an aggrieved person within the mean— ing of the Real Property Tax Law, or an officer or partner of such aggrieved person, 'hereby authorizes Koeppel Sommer Lesnick & Martone or any attorney employed by such firm, to act as our agent to : l {3 (1) File and serve a statement (also known as a complaint or protest) pursuant to Section 512 (1) of the RPTL , specifying the respect in which the assessment of the property listed below is illegal , erroneous , or unequal ; and (2) Verify , serve and file a petition for review of real property assessment pursuant to Article 7 of. the Real Property Tax Law. This authorization applies to the following property : a. County: Suffolk Town/City: Southold Village (if applicable) : 6ZF_- F &--� 00 P_� b. Address: JJ C. Section: Block: Lot : d. Item No. (if applicable) : 578070 e. Last known assessed valuation: $29,600 Dated : V a va, (Name of Aggrieved Person , i . e . , owner .tenant , etc, ) By � � � 'tm ky _ (Indicate title if aggrieved person is not a natural person) SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK COUNTY OF SUFFOLK ---------------------------------------x In the Matter of the .Petition of ASSOCIATED-EAST LENDING CORP. , Petitioner, NOTICE OF APPLICATION against - FOR REVIEW OF ASSESSMENT OF THE TOWN OF SOUTHOLD and THE BOARD REAL PROPERTY OF ASSESSORS OF THE TOWN OF SOUTHOLD, Respondents. ---------------------------------------x TO THE ABOVE-NAMED RESPONDENTS: PLEASE TAKE NOTICE that upon the annexed Petition, verified the 11 -1h day of September, 1977 , the undersigned will make an application at a Special Term, Part IV, of this Court to be held in and for the County of Suffolk at Suffolk County Mini Center, Union Blvd. , Bayshore, New York 11706, Courtroom number 2, on the 26th day of October, 1978 , at 9: 30 o'clock in the forenoon of that day, or as soon thereafter as counsel can be heard, for a review under Article 7 of the Real Property Tax Law,' of the tax assessment upon t4a gxpp�a t ,,Qf. t petitioner sit., c at Mattituck, in the Town of Southold, New York, which property is more particularly described in the annexed petition, and for such other and further relief as to the Court may seem just and proper. Dated: September rr 1978. Yours, etc. , ANDREW E. ULLMANN Attorney for Petitioner Office and P. O. Address TO: THE TOWN OF SOUTHOLD 2 Woodside Avenue and THE BOARD OF Northport, New York 11768 ASSESSORS OF THE TOWN OF SOUTHOLD SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK COUNTY OF SUFFOLK - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -X In the Matter of the Petition of ASSOCIATED-EAST LENDING CORP. , Petitioner, PETITION FOR REVIEW OF -against- ASSESSMENT OF REAL PROPERTY THE TOWN OF SOUTHOLD and THE BOARD OF ASSESSORS OF THE TOWN OF SOUTHOLD, Respondents. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -X TO THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK: The petition of ASSOCIATED-EAST LENDING CORP. respectfully shows: 1. That the petitioner is the owner of certain real property located in the Town of Southold, County of Suffolk and State of New York, more particularly hereinafter described. 2. Upon information and belief, at the times hereinafter mentioned, respondents were charged with the duly of making, reviewing, valuing and assessing property within said Town for taxation for State, CUL4ty Town and School purposes; and said repondents made, prepared and completed the assessment roll for said Town for the year 1978/79 and caused to be' published due notice of completion thereof and the time and place where said roll might be seen and examined. 3. Upon information and belief, the tentative assessment and the description on said assessment roll of petitioner' s real estate situated in said Town is as follows: Description Total Assessment N x Bethany Cemetery Assn. $ 344 ,700. 00 E x Bethany Cemetery Assn. S x Main Road W x Factory Aroprop 8. 750 acres, School Dist. 9 1000-142-1-26 4 . That within the time allowed by law, your petitioner duly filed with said Respondents a protest of the above-listed assessment and made an application to ft to have the same corrected upon the grounds of overvaluation of both land and building. Your petitioner at the time of the filing thereof stated under oath the respects in which the assessment complained of was incorrect and protested the same in accordance with the provisions of the Real Property Law of the State of New York and asked for a review, revision and reduction of said assessment against said real estate The said protest and application was filed with and received by said Board at the time or within the period appointed for the making of such applications and protests for revision of such assessment. The said statement contained in said application were then and now are true. .. .. R 5 . Upon information and belief, the said Respondents thereafter completed the assessment roll and made no changes in, but confirmed as final, the assessment set forth in Paragraph "3" hereof. Thereafter and on or before the lst day of September, 1978 , the said Respondents caused due notice to be published that the said assessment roll had been completed and would be open to public inspection. jW __ _ _ 6 . Upon information and belief, the valuation and asuei3s- inunt of the said parcel of real estate owned by petitioner , so mad as aforesaid by the said Respondents on the assessment roll, are erroneous by reason of overvaluation. The total assessment on the current tax rolls is $344 , 700. 00, both land and building. The extent of overvaluation is $288 , 900 . 00. 7 . Your petitioner is a5grieved and injured by the said overassessment and !Ehuneq 'ga�as" essm�f ,.. injured thereby and will be required to pay taxes which it could not be required by law to pay if said assessment had been made correctly and properly; and such unjust, unequal , excessive and illegal assessment will subject your petitioner to the payment of more taxes than it is legally required to pay. 8 . No previous application has been made for the relief herein sought and thirty (30) days have not elapsed since the final completion and filing of the said assessment roll as aforesaid. WHEREFORE, your petitioner prays for an Order directing the Respondents to reassess the property of petitioner and to correct the assessment upon the roll in such manner as shall be in accordance with law and as shall make said assessment conform to the valuation and assessment of other property upon the same roll and shall secure equality of assessment and that this Court take evidence to enable your petitioner to show the unequal , unjust, erroneous and illegal assessment against it and upon its property and that petitioner may have such other and further relief as may bu just, with the costs and disbursements of this proceeding. Dated: September 197$ ,,..•�"""` ASSOCIATED-EAST LEcNZ: 1I(G CORP. David T. Savage_ -Vico,-President COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA ) ) ss. ; COUNTY OF MONTGOMERY ) David T. Savage, being duly sworn, deposes and says; deponent is the Vice-President of ASSOCIATED-EAST LENDING CORP. , the petitioner in the within action; deponent has read the foregoing petition and knows the contents thereof; and the same is true to deponent' s own knowledge, except as to the matters therein stated to be alleged upon information and belief, and as to those. matters deponent believes it to be true. This verifica- tion is made by deponent because Associated-East Lending Corp. is a corporation and deponent is an officer thereof. The grounds of deponent' s belief as to all matters in the said petition not stated upon his own knowledge are investigation which deponent has caused to be made concerning the subject matte of this petition and information acquired by deponent in the course of his duties as an officer of said corporation and from the book and records of said corporation. ') David T. Savage Sworn to before me this ,J Z' day of September, 1978 . Notary /Puhl ' CATHERINE M.CORBETT,Notary Pub* Lower Merion Twp., Montgomery Co., Pad Commission Expires Marcb 2%148* ©1973 JULIUS BLUMBERG.INC. STATE OF NEW YORK, COUNTY OF ss.: The undersigned, an attorney admitted to practice in the courts of New York State, x ❑ Certification certifies that the within By Attorney has been compared by the undersigned with the original and found to be a true and complete copy. m Attorney's shows: deponent is Affirmation the attorney(s) of record for a in the within action; deponent has read the foregoing and knows ,the contents thereof; the same is true to deponent's own knowledge, except as to the matters therein stated to be alleged on information and belief, and that as to those matters deponent believes it to be true. This verification is made by deponent and not by The grounds of deponent's belief as to all matters not stated upon deponent's knowledge are as follows: The undersigned affirms that the foregoing statements are true, under the penalties of perjury. Dated: ----------------- -------------------------------------------------------- --- The name signed must be printed beneath STATE OF NEW YORK, COUNTY OF s=.: being duly sworn, deposes and says: deponent is o Individual the in the within action; deponent has read m ❑ Verification R the foregoing and knows the contents thereof; the same is true to _ deponent's own knowledge, except as to the matters therein stated to be alleged on information and belief, and as a to those matters deponent believes it to be true. U ❑ Corporate the of Verification a corporation, in the within action; deponent has read the foregoing and knows the contents thereof; and the same is true to deponent's own knowledge, except as to the matters therein stated to be alleged upon information and belief, and as to those matters deponent believes it to be true. This verification is made by deponent because is a corporation and deponent is an officer thereof. The grounds of deponent's belief as to all matters not stated upon deponent's knowledge are as follows: Sworn to before me on 19 ------------- ------------------- ----­------------- The name signed must be printed beneath STATE OF NEW YORK, COUNTY OF ss.: being duly sworn, deposes and says: deponent is not a party to the action, is over 18 years of age and resides at ❑ Affidavit On 19 deponent served the within of Service By Mail upon attorneys) for in this action, at the address designated by said attorney(s) for that purpose by depositing a true copy of same enclosed in a post-paid properly addressed wrapper, in—a post office—official a depository under the exclusive care and custody of the United States Postal Service within the State of New York. a a Affidavit ❑ On 19 at of Personal 5 Service deponent served the within upon the herein,by delivering a true copy thereof to h personally. Deponent knew the person so served to be the person mentioned and described in said papers as the therein. Swornto before me on 19 ----------------------------------------------- .......................... The name signed must be printed beneath Index No. Year 19 NOTICE OF ENTRY Sir:-Please take notice that the within is a (certified) SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF true copy of a NEW YORK: COUNTY OF SUFFOLK duly entered in the office of the clerk of the within named court on 19 In the Matter of the Petition of I ASSOCIATED—EAST LENDING CORP, , Dated, Yours,etc., ANDREW E. ULLMANN Petitioner, Attorney for —against— Office and Post Office Address 2 Woodside Avenue THE TOWN OF SOUTHOLD and THE NORTHPORT, N. Y. 11768 BOARD OF ASSESSORS OF THE TOWN OF SOUTHOLD, To Respondents. a Attorney(s) for NOTICE OF SETTLEMENT NOTICE AND PETITION FOR REVIEW a Sir:—Please take notice that an order OF ASSESSMENT. OF REAL PROPERTY of which the within is a true copy will be presented (� 00 for settlement to the Hon. ANDREW E. ULLMANN Attorney for Petitioner �sl Q� one of the judges of the within named Court, at Office and Post Office Address, Telephone V 2 Woodside Avenue on 19 NORTHPORT, N. Y. 11768 0 at M. [rr 516-261-6066 Dated, Q Q Yours,etc., TO .._..r..-. ANDREW E. ULLMANN Attorney for Attorney(s) for Office and Post Office Address 2 Woodside Avenue Service of a copy of the within NORTHPORT, N. Y. 11768 is hereby admitted. I Dated, To ................................................................... Attorney(s) for Attorney(s)for 1500-JULIUS BLUMBERG,INC..LAW BLANK PUBLISHERS,N.Y.C. 10018 i I! 1 i i ! SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK COUNTY OF NASSAU ll ---------------------------------------X �i In the Matter of the Application of Index No. WESTBURY EQUIPMENT CO. , INC. NOTICE OF PETITION. - Petitioner, Item #495881 • ; DIST. 1000: SEC. 053 -against- BLK. 3 LOT 2 THE ASSESSOR.OF THE TOWN OF SOUTHOLDf Item #496121- ' DYST. 1000" SEC. 053 Respondents. BLK 1 LOT 9,- For Review of a Tax Assessment under Article 7 of .the Real _Property - Law.• ------ .-.-=-- --------------------- - X TO. THE RESPONDENT ABOVE NAMED: •. � PLEASE TAKE NOTICE that,' upon the arinexed' verified. peti- - - tion, - an application ;will be made for petitioner by his-agent pur- suant to the .provision of the Real Property Tax Law at a Special: Term for *Tax Certiorari of this Court to be held at the courthouse thereof on. November .17, 1978., at 9:30 'A.M. , or as soon thereafter as. counsel can be heard for a review of the assessed valuation placed upon the property described in the annexed petition, upon the- grounds set forth 'therein so that 'said assessment may be !I reviewed and the assessment corrected, vacated or modified as the }f circumstances may require, and for such other and 'further relief as may be just and proper in the premises. Dated: September 25, 1978 Yours etc. , FROEHLICH & MAHONY ii Attorneys for Petitioner Office & P.O.Address f 34 Willis Avenue Mineola , New York 11501 (516) CH 8-6 500 �i I' ;� SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK COUNTY OF NASSAU --------------------------------------X Item No. 495881 Item No.496121 In the Matter of the Application of WESTBURY EQUIPMENT CO. , INC. Index No. Petitioner, PETITION. -against- THE ASSESSOR OF THE TOWN OF SOUTHOLD, . Respondents. . For Review of a Tax Assessment under Article 7 of the Real Property Tax Law: . -------------------------------------X TO THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK: The Petitioner above named, by Petitioners ' attorneys, FROEHLICH & MAHONY,ESQS. , respectfully alleges as follows: 1. At all times hereinafter mentioned, Petitioner was and still is the owner of the above mentioned real pr%eE payer of the municipality whose Board of Assessors is the respondent herein (hereinafter referred to as "the assessing jurisdiction") and is an aggrieved party with respect to the assessment within the meaning of. Section 706 , Real Property Tax Law of the State of New York. 2 . The respondent on July 18th, 1978 prepared, completed, perfected and filed, purportedly according to Law, an assessment roll for the assessing jurisdiction for the year,which assessment roll included an assessment for your Petitioner' s real property described in Column I assessed as set forth in Column II of the following schedule. COLUMN I COLUMN II COLUMN III COLUMN IV COLUMN V EXTENT OF INEQUALITY DIST. SEC. ORIGINAL CLAIMED CONFIRMED AND/OR BLK. LOT VALUATION VALUATION VALUATION OVERVALUATION Item # 495881 (10 . 8 acres) Dist. 1000 Sec . 053 Block 3 Lot 2 $3, 900 $21200 $3 ,900 $ 1,70 Item #496121 (13 .210 acres) Dist. 1000 Sec. 053 Block 1 Lot 9 $6,200 $3 ,300 $6,200 $ 2 , 90 Item # Dist. Sec. Block Lot $ $ $ $ 3. The Petitoner, by his agent, timely filed a statement duly rotesting the tentative assessed valuation as set forth In Colu n I, supra, and duly requested a reduction in assessed valuation o the amount set forth. in Column IFI, supra. 4 . The Respondent failed and refused to reduce or modify the assessed valuation as demanded but instead established a final assessment as set forth in Column IV, supra. 5. Upon information and belief, the assessed valuation as confi mei_ by the Respondent is erroneous by reason of inequality and/or OVEr- Valuation and are illegal inasmuchas they provide an unequal ba is for school tax purposes and are made at a percentage of full max et value. WHEREFORE, Petitioner prays that this Court review t e assessed values placed upon Petitioner' s property and vacate, mo i,fy, or otherwise correct the assessed valuations accoj�di;ngly. e itioner i { 2 li li I ,i (II' - 11 STATE OF NEW YORK .SS: COUNTY OF NASSAU The undersigned being duly sworn, deposes and says: that depon- ent is the vice-pres.of the corp. herein, that deponent has read the foregoing petition and knows the contents thereof; that the same is true to deponent' s own knowledge, except as to the matters therein stated to-..be alleged upon information and belief, -�> and that as to those matters,' deponent believes it to be true; an that the reason this verification is made by deponent and not by petitioner is that all the material allegations (except those as to matters of. public record) of said petition are within the per- sonal knowledge of deponent. JAMES POSILLICOA, VICE. PR S. Sworn to before me this 25th d y fSep em r 978. WM.. d BRUIN,. R. NOTARY RU,B State of'New York 'No 30.0892665 Qualifi in iNossau County Commission Expires March 30, 19 - i i I; Sir: bf atlease take notice, that the within is a true copy SUPREME COURT ...................••.......--------........•-•-..............----•....._ XAS,SAU :COUNT this day duly entered and filed in the within entitled action, in the office of the Clerk of the County In the Matter of the ................. .. .................................... Application of ' dated....................... .... ..............._«_..«19 WESTBURX EQUIPMENT CO. ,INC. Yours. &C., Petitioner, FROEHLICH & MAHONY ainst- Attorneys for........................................................... —against— OFFICE a 5 OFFICE AND POST OFFICE ADDRESS THE ASSESSOR OF THE TOWN 34 WILLIS AVENUE OF SOUTHOLD., MINEOLA, NEW YORK 11501 Respondent. To...._......»......................................»...«..............Esq., Attorney for.....................................................». ORIGINAL NOTICE OF MOTION TO REVIEW ASSESSMENT Sir. Please take notice that the within..»........... FROEHLICH & MAHONY ` ...I.....e.............................w..«...«»........................ 46 will be presented for settlement and signature Attorneys for.........P.etitianer-------------------- hErein to the Hon..........«..........»»........»»«.............., OFFICE AND POST OFFICE ADDRESS one of the Justices of the within named Court, at 34 WILLIS AVENUE j MINEOLA, NEW YORK 11501 .............................«.......«............................ ... .:_...w..,.;ac............»... .«....19 , 1T«........«......._....1�. Dated... ... .........«..............»«......»...................19 Yours. &G, RE' IV FD BY FROEHLICH & MAHONY Testi 0i 'OUTHOLD !' Attorneys for........................................................... Due and personal service of cop of the within DAT r pz 6�) OFFICE AND POST OFFICE ADDRESS 34 WILLIS AVENUE ill MINEOLA, NEw YORK 11501 as hereby admitted this day of. 19 a . - 1 TQ.....A.00ft..«:... �. ..........«..............«.....................Esq., Atttorney for Attorney for._...;:...,....»....«..».»....................... _, ; GCOROR ROHN PRINTING CO..INC.71 MURRAY OTRZZT.N.Y.C.t0007 TC-7004 y - r SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK COUNTY OF SUFFOLK --------------------------------------------------X In the Matter of the Application of Index No. JUNCTION--PROPERTIES , NOTICE OF PETITION Petitioner, -against- THE againstTHE BOARD OF ASSESSORS AND THE BOARD OF ASSESSMENT REVIEW OF THE TOWN OF SOUTHOLD, Respondents. For Review of a Tax Assessment under Article 7 of the Real Property Tax Law. -------------------------------------------------X TO THE RESPONDENT ABOVE NAMED: PLEASE TAKE NOTICE that, upon the annexed verified petition an application will be made, pursuant to the provision of the Real Property Tax Law at a Special Term for Tax Certiorari of this Court to be held at the courthouse thereof on October 30, 1978, at 9:30 a.m., or as soon thereafter as counsel can be heard for a review of the assessed valuation placed upon the property described in the annexed petition, upon the grounds set forth herein so that said assessment may be reviewed and the assessment corrected, vacated or modified as the circumstances may require and for such other and further relief as may be just and proper in the, premises. Yours, etc. DATED: September 15; 1978 SANT1! IM, COSTIGAN AND MURPHY, P.C. Attorneys for Petitioner Office and Post Office Address 114 Old Country Road Mineola, New York 11501 (516) 294-8081 SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK COUNTY OF SUFFOLK --------------------------------------------------------X In the Matter-of the Application of Index No. JUNCTION PROPERTIES, PETITION Petitioner, -against- THE againstTHE BOARD OF ASSESSORS AND THE BOARD OF ASSESSMENT REVIEW OF THE 'TOWN OF SOUTHOLD, Respondents. For Review of a Tax Assessment under Article 7 of the Real Property Tax Law. -------------------------------------------------------X TO THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK: The Petitioner above-named, by Petitioners' attorneys, SANTE MA, COSTIGAN AND MURPHY, P.C. , respectfully alleges as follows: AS AND FOR A FIRST CAUSE OF ACTION: 1. At all times hereinafter mentioned, Petitioner was and still is a taxpayer of the municipality whose Board of Assessors is the respondent herein (hereinafter referred to as "the assessing jurisdiction") and is an aggrieved party with respect to the assessment within the meaning of Section 706, Real Property Tax Law of the State of New York. 2. The respondent has heretofore prepared, completed, perfected and filed, purportedly according to Law, an assessment roll for the assessing jurisdiction for the year which assessment roll included an assessment for your. Petitioner's real property described in Column I assessed as set forth in Column II of the following schedule. Column I Column II Column III Column IV Column V Extent of Town of Southold Inequality Village Original Claimed Confirmed and/or S.D. Valuation Valuation Valuation Overvaluation Property Description A Item No, 423111 Land $ A 27,300 $ * $ B. Item No. 519311- B. 13,700 Total $ A. 56,200 $ 20, 000 * $ 50,000 B. 13,800 B. Land $ $ * $ Total $ $ * $ Column I Column II Column III Column IV Column V Town Village original Claimed Confirmed Extent of S.D. Valuation Valuation Valuation Inequality and/or Overvaluation Property Description C Land $ $ * $ Total $ $ * $ D Land $ $ * $ Total $ $ * $ E Land $ $ * $ Total $ $ * $ *Same as Original Valuation, Column II, except as otherwise indicated. The Petitioner has timely filed a statement duly protesting the tentative assessed valu- ation as set forth in Column II, supra, and duly requested a reduction in assessed valuation to the amount set forth in Column III, supra. 4. The respondent failed and refused to reduce or modify the assessed valuation as demanded but instead established a final assessment as set forth in Column IV, supra. 5. Upon information and belief, the assessed valuations as confirmed by the Respondents are erroneous upon the following grounds: (a) Overvaluation (to the extent set forth in Column V of Paragraph 2 above) ; (b) Inequality (to the extent set forth in Column V of Paragraph 2 above) , in that it has been made at a higher proportionate value than the assessment of other real property in the assessing jurisdiction made by the respondent; the specified instances of such inequality are the assessments of all of the real property in the assessing jurisdiction and each and every parcel thereof; and (c) Illegality inasmuch as they provide an unequal basis for school tax purposes and are made at a percentage of full market value. 6. Your petitioner is aggrieved and injured by said unjust, unequal, excessive, illegal, and erroneous assessment, and will be required to pay a greater amount and proportion of taxes than your petitioner would be required to pay if the said assessment had been just and equal. 7. No provision is made by law for an appeal or other relief from the final determination of the respondent except by a review by petition to the Supreme Court and no previous application for the relief herein asked has been made to any court or judge. s 8. If there is more than one petitioner herein, the word "petitioner" shall mean "petitioners" or "each of petitioners", as the context requires. AS AND FOR A SECOND CAUSE OF ACTION 9. Repeats and realleges the allegations of paragraphs "1" through "8" inclusive herein. 10. Pursuant to the provisions of Real Property Tax Law §307, Petitioner alleges, upon in- formation and belief, in the alternative and subject to proof at Petitioner's election, that Respondent has made Petitioner's assessment at a higher proportionate valuation than the assessment of other taxable real property of the same major type as determined by the State Board of Equalization and Assessment pursuant to §1200 RPTL. WHEREFORE, Petitioner prays that this Court review the assessed values placed upon Petitioner's property and vacate, modify or otherwise correct the assessed valuations of the said real property, and for such other and further relief as the Court may deem proper, together with the costs and disbursements of this proceeding. STATE OF NEW YORK ) )ss: COUNTY OF NASSAU ) The undersigned being duly sworn, deposes and says: that deponent is the agent for the Petitioner herein, that deponent has read the foregoing petition and knows the contents thereof; that the same is true to deponent's own knowledge, except as to matters therein stated to be alleged upon information and belief, and that as to those matters, deponent believes it to be true; and that the reason this verification is made by deponent and not by Petitioner is that all the material allegations (except those as to matters of public record) of said petition are within the personal knowledge of deponent. Swo to before me this 15 ay of September, 1978. NotaryPPub is IA St ate oL EE f New York No."30.4005222 Commission Expires Nassau arch 30,County 7..9. AUTHORIZATION Pursuant to RPTL Section 512 and Section 706 The undersigned, a person or entity who may be aggrieved by the following assessed valuation within the meaning and intent of the Real Property Tax Law hereby authorizes Santemma, Costigan and Murphy, P.C. , its attorneys, agents and employees to act as agent for the sole purpose of verifying, serving and filing such protests as Santemma, Costigan and Murphy, P.C. , deem appropriate, and, if necessary or appropriate, such petitions for review of real property assessment pursuant to Article 5 and 7 of the Real Property Tax Law as they deem appropriate. This authorization applies to property described as follows: COUNTY: SUFFOLK TOWN: SOUTHOLD VILLAGE: DESCRIPTION• Item Nos. 423111 &519311 Dated: July 1, 1978 JUNCTION PROPERTIES INC. U i OUR FILE NO: r SUP REJI±; COUl7r Ulc' `.t7IF S-�A'PE OFPd1+'.17 YORK SEP % Not 9191 ' COUNTY OF SUr?01K ` - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -x In the Matter of Ntrclrt,; OF Pt,,rTTJ:DX ARMUR ` ILT,14M. end PETITION Petitioner against- Index No. THE ASSESSOR arA .1511z BOARD OF ASSESSORS (W ' T' Tc OF ' . SOUTHOLD Respondent. s - - - - - - - - - _ - - - - - - - - --x To THE RESPONDENT ABOVE" RAMED: PLEASE TAXV NO`rICS that on the within Petition of 471@ above-r►: d petitioner, duly verified tl,s 24-th4ay of September 19783 an application will be made, pursuant to the provi:sloOs of: the Real Property Tax Law at A- ' tat Term, Tart IV of this Court, t6 he- held at the courthouse thereaaft t:he 23rd day of October 1978s at lO OaAM or as soon `:herea rte r so Counsel .,can be heard, for the relief prayed for In said Petiti©ny 10M. the ground set forth therein, and for such ether and further relief as may be just and proper in the premises. Dated: September 28th � 197$ Yours, etc. , JOSFPH T. IMANNING Attorney For Pet tioxfer 791 1101.1te 25A p. C. B,,)x AP M111fer Place, N. Y. � . i SujIIRiJ-IN Cl aikT ('F TUE, AS:i°ATI;,', OF j:`M YR I: CUU14TY 0? SUFFULK In Vie hatter' of A.RTHUR TI) MAN !.aif Petitioner -suivst rrdeX F;o. `_HI ASSESSOR and TH pJtSD OF iVimsskam� OF THE iOTp dF. _ i Respondent. w 1 - - - - - - X TO ,M :SUt'RE r, C IURT OF THIO STAUB ('»+* Tt�'�4 YORK; T- , Pe�itionex their attarne s Dov: h 7111�inin 1:�,_ s '� s i? res"etfully,shows and elle4es as To lows 1. At all tines h relty trx tjonj�d, Petitioner 'gas pni4 still is ;a ta .-Laayer of the Town of Southold County of " ,i'folk, (hereinafter rererred to as the "assessing jurisdiction and flie owner of the real property hereinafter referred to. P. `1'he Respondents ),ave heretofore erretof ore .l�j r>�.r;��rid :ai��i et�;�plcted, ' accord ng to law, a ,geiieral .aesessinent roll for the str,nasi ng jird s�3icti n . 5 fqr the fiscal year of 1978-1979. �-, 3 Petitioner's teal prop,3rty"was assec;,ei .i d described on said as.sesihent roll as follows: iftm #767oi-5 ,Scb-ol District 9 ' SulAivi_sion Inlet: F,-zst Lot 5 €.. - n g 7777 w lzro,party,; couixtw of Sllrf olk$< r DESCRUTION T,tkND `i`UPAL -- �.� V 76 7o15 Crile restgoo Loi +. ion � xfcrxy:r, ii� n : i�d La13ef, i,l;e ;so i. , ;;; ' rt x'ot 9rtG'8 k dxaly coy plet.ed and filed ss rf;(Iuix�e by 1, ti.,� 'unci t,? �.� • ::iter,` 0,a fiespercl::n s duly c:o�;od, and caixse4 tobe j ub)- bcd n the of i cewspai,-ts a resol i. :ion stating that the roll had beer' compl,v�;,.d' 3t�d fited�, anal ;{aat %04 tc exan3:,a{,ion, :ld spc:ci `yig wiet ` 'she e c of Pc�rt•san n ,r� :y any, contaWdi - t sa1d a ,,, #1? nt roll could;-'appv' t:'A 14 h,�-ird v In relation thereto. 5. In c�anrplianee with t,fe waIA xesolutiota., + � I'(:tit or„ x- t u1y irrade and Filed wit)i the Res' ex'i'ts 4 written application• id sta11�vient under oath, to liavo said �; a�LeseA' v l:' tion of ths� P corrected and revised, speciryifig# t o to the r p Ct in 14hieh thea >j�A's twat coauplained of was, Incorredt cxwd AOS "appMfi tion and sta n;rept- $aught ;tCa re&ice the assesswent dnrlf Tamed of, a set rorth hereafter. The said - a pp cat°tan and statement 3.s hereby r rgrred, to end a^acle a p rt of his ttit fln a if ie %•;ere Aally ret ' rth herein. V tuatian ,u �:h' .:h written ;-I.plAostion and stat tit uAcath referred in this 3ra 24 h souejtt to reduce the sss wren-t hs�, 1rred TOTAL $8227.60 s .'„<,- s } 3" •t.ti $ 7 y K a —,J •!1:i.ef, a i'inal. t7aci s 1 on :%l Oet,�r- r1i.nat.ic�n on f,}�c said < �17li.ct i;:i.c.i ;:,ci i.; f;�.. _sit ^:rs s �'�tl.y r��1.:r d'by the Re r;. ridcnts, trho rail!.d and to c;o,•; cct or t};e said vrl.lur_tion of PetiUont_r' a p�-u ,ex•t.y: i:lic,i—'.til-.t.,r ',ttj 'T1?}7ill the ti;^:e li:,iited by, law, the said a.s!:essmrint roll .-is (bil.y r_o,.-I)lp':A •-(,d vo-rif ed, ;�^s duly f led and notice Cher'-of duly •,ub and a certified copy thereof 1'.shed and 1.:ost-d in ncctir(3::nce wi-th l.;lw., ,•l};i:i Aa your Petitioicerl s rc�3 projeity is arse sei on -aid at colt a5 }►c'i'f,zits.if_Fole cet forth. S. Tbi.rty days havo not e1r,y,;,eci 81tice tate C:�.I.:T.ng of the r:aiA certifi- d ropy ,of the eor_:fi.eted b.nd '^Vex1fied rs:le„^ :nt co1.l_, r.,s re=g1), d 'byr, law. 9. The said as;cis s�-ieut of yo—ar feta Li.ciler's -,u uperty is erroneous upont}le followinig grounds; (A) Over valuation to the extent of $25,019.5}} (B) Inequality in that it } ys been ii,-.de at a. ni.ghs�r .proportionate valuation than the assessment of other rcval. prcterty of like character in tho assessing jurisdiction r-Ady by the 111nq)onc'ents; that the 6.peci:fi.ed inst.•.ncc;s of such i riecii.vil ity is i;he n.:�;�ers:ient of all q the real property in the esse:,sing ju:•i sdiction, and cacli and (:I Ty tVel thereof. 1.0. Your retitioner is aggr:i_c:vcd and in ju t-ed by said un=just, U egv*1, excessive, i:llet al and c rroneoi.is assc!ssir,ent, and ;.:3.11. be required to pay a L1t•r•ltc:r amount iiid ;n•opurt.ion of i.ayc!s, than required to pay if the .w tm#."'•a "=•'a'ti'sea�afioa�aW`rXMs�g��.-.t".._Y.. a said had Leen just and eyun,l. 1.1. I�lo 7 ovision is � ,-Ae b law for an r: > al; or other re, ief p�' y )P'-• from the final def;ex;nin �.t3 on of elle Rpspclnde;tts, cxce t by a x•eview by rt Petition to the uupr(;xze Court, and no previous ;5..,p li at on or rhe f a herein sled }las 1-1-een made to airy Court or Judge t:;f.c(zpt ''flintth:re in uow pending before the Court an action to review, the ^���>�:�, nr;t t'or the tax year 1978-1979 covering your Petiti.oncr' s props lAy, 1ti'3Ir ��;F'012F your Petitioner pra��s, Viat; the .>upre;i� CcsU['t r,:v}.r_.r and co-:-rect on the )-nerits' the afore; enUoned fin-nl deter•m notion of the Res-, )ndents on the grounds set forth in this Petition, and i:l,at ",he i.d Court take �.•videiiae to enable your Petitioner to show the unjust, unegtlal, excessive, illegal and erroneous assessment of said real piorcrty to the end and '-.hat the said assessment mV be reduced to the full., true nai itet value thereof for land and improvements., and to be a valuation proportion- ate to the assess�r.ents of other real property assessed on the s:,me rolls for the G'a'ge year, so. that equality of assessioents will result, and 1'or such other and further,relief As the Court may deem proper, toSether gath the costs and disbursements of this proceeding. Dated: Sept:er„ber ZSth, 1978 ° AnTRUR TILLMAN JO&Ii I ':ANNING STATE OF NEW YORK, COUNTY OF ea: The undersigned, an attorney admitted to practice in the courts of New York State, Certification certifies that the within By attorney has been compared by the undersigned with the original and found to be a true and complete copy. m ❑ Attomey's shows: deponent is Affirmation the attorneys) of record for a a in.the within action; deponent has read the foregoing and knows the contents thereof; the same is true to deponent's own knowledge, except as to the matters therein stated to be alleged on information and belief, and that as to those matters deponent believes it to be true. This verification is made by deponent and not by The grounds of deponent's belief as to all matters not stated upon deponent's knowledge are as follows: The undersigned affirms that the foregoing statements are true, under the penalties of perjury. Dated: ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ The name signed must be printed beneath STATE OF NEW YORK, COUNTY OF SUr1F01 . ss.: ARTUUR TILIMAN being duly sworn, deposes and says: deponent is Individual the Petitioner in the within action; deponent has read m 1 7 Verification the foregoing NO"t-Ace Of PetitiOA & PetittW knows the contents thereof; the same is true to deponent's own knowledge, except as to the matters therein stated to be alleged on information and belief, and as to those matters deponent believes it to be true. Corporate the of v Elverification a corporation, in the within action; deponent has read the foregoing and knows the contents thereof; and the same is true to deponent's own knowledge, except as to the matters therein stated to be alleged upon information and belief, and as to those matters deponent believes it to be true. This verification is made by deponent because is a corporation and deponent is an officer thereof. The grounds of deponent's belief as to all matters not stated upon deponent's knowledge are as follows: Sworn to before me on Septet = 2 19 ARTHUR TZ LLMAN 7 --------- -----...----------- The name signed must fn printed beneath N Y 7ERROLD S. STERN No. 52 - M/ NOTARY PUBLIC. State of Now Yo* Tom+ No. 52-9182515. Suffolk C4*n STATE OF NEW YORK, COUNTY OF sa: Term Expires March 30, 19 being duly sworn, deposes and says: deponent is not a party to the action, is over 18 years of age and resides at ❑ Affidavit On 19 deponent served the within of Service By Mail upon attorney(s) for in this action, at 19 the address designated by said attorney(s) for that purpose by depositing a true copy of same enclosed in a post-paid properly addressed wrapper, in—a post office—official a depository under the exclusive care and custody of the United States Postal Service within the State of New York. a Affidavit On 19 at of Personal Service deponent served the within upon the herein,by delivering a true copy thereof to h personally. Deponent knew the person so served to be the person mentioned and described in said papers as the therein. Sworn to before me on 19 The name signed must be printed beneath ' W—W"" Y " "' 11i`n,? :'4.,.� 6 •r ':ry> ,x '..a eap"?' ;w P,„±, Index No. Year 19 NOTICK 9E ENTRT .k .. .. -.. ' - } `Sir:-Please take notice that the within is a (cortifled) true copy of a � t . 3 V duly entered in the °ff> l of the within z named court onZu -th* Katt*x oil Dated, auk ' TILLY" Yours,atc�, �3 JOSEPH T.T MANNING Bl�tt�.tltsn�Az`� Attorney for k -against- Office andPot ��fica Address 7�1 RQ TE 25ATu �BESSOR "d Tug BOARD or( Assalmosts or P:o este AP vs TOWN OF SOUTHOLD, MILLER PLAc$ N. 11784 � a :, �r. Aa,�p�I�t��►At, To s�� as �'� ����_ ��,. � . Attorney(s) for f ; 1 NOTICE AF tETT�,��1i NTS E Sir:—Please take notice th )PI;t order 1 , ,, IM of which the within is VIt'FPy Will be presented for settlement to the H 'JOSEPH T. MANNING �•:w �,�I">�,., �" . Attorney for one of the judges of ithin a named Court, at Office and Post Office Address, Telephone z 3 791 ROUTE 25Ak OII . kxf p 19 BOX AP P. o. t at ` '",: z"• MILLER PLACE, N. Y. 11784 Dated, (518) 744.1400 Yours,,arc., JOSEPH T -MANNING TO Attorney for A w RE -" UVF,D AND FIT BY Attorney(s) for '1 Office and Ad#rets' tt THE SOU C";i0?.D TM"IN CIXTR 791 2SSA Service of a copy of the within ?" r '11 Cj,�'jj� tri DATE P. 8 .AP r ��7 9/7� HOUR .�/�j is hereby admitted, MILLER PLACW,,,N.Y. 11754 Dated, a y _� own Clerk Attorney(s) for , Town of Southold �tlRt!�Ey{s)-fOr� ` 130Q—JULIUS BLUMBERG,INC.,LAW BLANK PUBLISHERS,N.Y.Q. 10013 ,,y ,A N NNW Poem 4 1 lE COURT) OFTfrr:-� ATE OF NEW YORK COUNTY OF SUFFOLK x 4 In the Matter of NOTICE OF PETITION _- THE SOUTf11,:'1N[) CORPORATION INDEX NO. Petitioner , -ac;a Inst- THE BOARD OF ASSESSORS AND THE BOARD OF ASSESSMENT REVIEW OF THE COUNTY OF SUFFOLK, AND THE TOWN OF SOUTHOLD, Respondent. - - - - - - - - - - - -- - - - - - - - - - x PLEASE TAKE NOTICE THAT, upon the annexed verified petition, an applic ,tion will be made, pursuant to the provisions of tht, Real Property Tax Law at a Special �Ym for Tax Certiorari. of this Court, to be held at the courthouse thereof,; on October 30 , 197R, at 9: 30 A.M. , or as s n then®- after as coVff%Tcan be heard , for the relief prayed for in such petition, upon grounds set forth therein, and for such other, further and different relief as may be just and proper in the premises . DATED: Minecila , New York Septembi--t 14 , 1978 LIPPE, RUSKIN , SCHLISSEL & MOSCOU, P.C. Attorneys for Petitioner 114 Old Country Road Mineola, New York 11501 ( 516) 248-9500 Y. SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK COUNTY OF SUFFOLK - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - x In the Matter of PETITION THE SOUTHLAND CORPORATION Petitioner, INDEX NO. -against- THE BOARD OF ASSESSORS AND THE BOARD OF ASSESSMENT REVIEW OF THE COUNTY OF SUFFOLK, AND THE TOWN OF SOUTHOLD, Respondent. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - x TO THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK: The Petitioner above named, by his attorneys , LIPPE, RUSKIN, SCHLISSEL & MOSCOU, P.C. , respectfully alleges as follows: 1. At all times herein mentioned, Petitioner was and still is a taxpayer of the municipality whose Board of Assessors and Board of Assessment Review is the respondent herein (herein- after referred to as "the assessing jurisdiction") and is an aggrieved party with respect to the assessment within the meaning of 5706, Real Property Tax Law, State of New York. 2. The respondent has heretofore prepared, completed and perfected, purportedly according to law, an assessment roll for the assessing jurisdiction, for the tax year 1979, which assessment roll included an assessment for your petitioner's ,e real property , described in Column I and assessed as set forth in Column II of the following schedule: �j -1- 't a i COLUMN I COLUMN II COLUMN III COLUMN IV COLUMN V Town: SOUTHOLD Original Claimed Confirmed extent of Village: E.CUTCHOGUE Valuation Valuation Valuation Inequality School District: and/or Overvaluation Sec. Block Lot A Land $1,300 .00 $ * $ ITEM NO. 304361 Total $9,900.00 $ 8,600. 00 * $ 1,300.00 B Land. $ $ * $ Total $ $ * $ C Land $ $ * $ Total $ $ * $ D Land $ $ * $ Total $ $ * $ E Land $ $ * $ Total $ $ * $ F Land $ $ * $ Total $ $ * $ G Land $ $ * $ Total $ $ * $ *Same as Column II except as otherwise indicated. -2- v 3. Your Petitioner duly made and filed with respondent a written application and statement under oath, to have said assessed valuation of said real property corrected and revised, specifying therein the respect in which the assessment com- plained of was incorrect and which application and statement sought to reduce the assessment complained of as set forth in Column III of Paragraph 2 above. The said application and statement are hereby referred to and made part of this petition as though fully set forth herein. 4. Upon information and belief, a final decision and determ- ination on the said application and statement was duly rendered by the respondent, who failed and refused to correct or reduce the said assessment as requested and confirmed the said assessed valuation of Petitioner' s property as set forth in Column IV of Paragraph 2 above. 5. Thirty (30) days have not elapsed since the filing of the certified copy of the completed and verified assessment roll as required by law. 6. The said assessment of your Petitioner' s property is erroneous upon the following grounds : (a) Overvaluation (to the extent set forth in Colum V of Paragraph 2 above; (b) Inequality, (to the extent set forth in Column V of Paragraph 2 above, in that the assessment has been made at a higher proportionate value than the assessment of other real property in the assessing jurisdiction; the specified instances of such inequality are the assessments of all of the real property in the assessing jurisdiction and each and every parcel thereof; (c) Inequality (to the extent set forth in Column V of Paragraph 2 above) in that the assessment has been made at a higher proportionate valuation than the assessment of other taxable real property of the same major type as determined by the State Board of Equalization and Assessment pursuant to Real Propeity- Tax 'Law §1200. 7. Your Petitioner is aggrieved and injured by said unjust, unequal, excessive, illegal and erroneous assessment, and will be required to pay a greater amount and proportion of taxes than your Petitioner would be required to pay if the said assessment had been just and equal . -3- te 8 . No provision is made by law for an appeal or other relief from the final determination of the respondent except by a review by petition to the Supreme Court and no previous appli- cation for the relief herein asked has been made to any court or judge. 9. If there is more than one Petitioner herein, the word "Petitioner" shall mean "Petitioners" or "each of Petitioners" as the context requires. WHEREFORE, your Petitioner prays that the Supreme Court review and correct on the merits the aforementioned final determina- tion of the respondent on the grounds set forth in this petition, and that the said Court take evidence to enable your Petitioner to show the unjust, unequal, excessive, illegal and erroneous assessment of the said real property to the end that the assess- ment may be reduced to the full, true and market value thereof for land and improvements , and to a valuation proportionate to the assessments of other real property assessed on the same rolls for the same year, and/or to a valuation proportionate to the assessment of other taxable real property of the sass major type as determined by the State Board of Equalization and Assessment, so that equality of assessments will result, and for such other and further relief as the Court may dem► proper, together with the costs and disbursements of this proceeding. LIPPE, RUSKIN, SCHLISSEL & MOSCOU, P.C. Attorney for Petitioner 114 Old Country Road Mineola, New York 11501 (516) 248-9500 -4- V E RM3 jMVMqA S­ ',A D TU051 'i'VoICIT STATE OF 14MI YOGIC` 'CO- UNtY OF NASSAU S GO --RIi---F0Wt;ER"' -bL!s'M-q--ffU-Iy sw rn, deposes I and says: that deponent is the Assi,g_;tAmt-..Se ...Sze retary of the Petitioner rLib-';46!i!i J the fore- .n going petition and knows the contents thereof; that the same is true to deponent's own knowledge, except as to matters therein stated to be alleged upon information and belief, and that as to those matters, deponent believes it to be true. +� IL GORDON R. FOWLER Sworn to before me this 14th day of September , 1978. ewe of 146W i +, s 9000 low ry C i 99— umhw# iri odt Notice,Supreme Court.1(1•RA CoflYIm0ml 1079 iY JuuU$BtuMstar3,1NC.:"LAW BLANK PUBLISNKRA erolon 41 servIce• ,r 60 K CHAP1a6_P1...AT.®#YRtaowAY, 14,Y,.C, 10004 Prue" tea trt of r e �a 'all rk � 1ri t SUFFOLK Ind ex"No, Plaintiff designates In the Matter of teh Application far Judicia Suffolk . Review under Article of "the-Real 'Property',' County as the place of trial Tax S,aw of a Real Property "Tax Assessment' by reisadence of ther plaintiff EYLENR H. KING� The bast's of the c�,�nue is Plaiutil3 agaihrst MELVILLE KELSEY, JR. , HENRY MQISA, and CHARLES tIATTS,; Assessors 'of the Town of *lYriMMS Southold, County of Suffolk, State of New Plaintiff resides at York, Rocky Point Road East Marion, NY Defendant County of Suffolk To the above named Defendant VOUarr 4rrth ff j1UM 0jttb to answer the complaint in this action and to serve a copy of your, answer, or, if the complaint ' s not served with this summons, to servea notice of appearance, on the Plaintiff's Attorney(s) withig 20 days after the service of this summons, exclusive of the day of service,(or within 30L,days after the service is complete if this summons is not personally delivered to you I within the State of New York); and in case of your failure to appear or answer,judg- meat will L be taken against you by default for the relief demanded in the complaint. Dated, JOHN J. MUNZET. ESQ. Defendant's address: Main Rodd Southold NY Attorneys) for Plaintiff Post Office Address 548 Roanoke Avenue Riverhead, . NY 11901 MIS) 727-7345 i f I i G r SUPREME COURT: STATE OF NEW YORK COUNTY OF SUFFOLK ----------------------- - --- -- -.-X I In the Matter of 1 the Application for a Judicial Review n under Article 7 of the Real Property Tax Law of a Real Property Tax Assess- NOTICE OF APPLICATION meat, by FOR REVIEW OF ASSESSMENT` EYLENE H. KING I Petitioner, -against- MELVILLE KELSEY, JR, HENRY MOISA,` and CHARLES WATTS, Assessors of the Town of Southold, County of Suffolk, i Stateof New York, Respondent ------------------------------------------X I 1 PLEASE TAKE NOTICE that upon the petition of £YLENE H. KING, verified the da of September, 1978 a 'co of which is annexed Y P , PY � hereto, an application will be made at a Special Term of the Supreme Court to be held in and for the County of Suffolk, at the County Court House, located at Griffing Avenue, Riverhead, New York on the 15th day of November, 1978 at 10:00 o'clock in the forenoon of that day oras soon thereafter as _ d counsel can be heardforthe review, under Article 7 of the Real Property Tax Law of the State of New York, of the certain assessment of $28,600.00 for the year 1978-79 on real property owned by the petitioner and situate in the Town of Southold, County of Suffolk and State of New York, being the real property described in the assessment roll''as follows: 'District No. 1001,; Segt. ion 004; Block No. 10; Lot No. 031, Page No. 50; Book 1' to the end that all proceedings, decisions, and actions in .the:.ria.t.tef: of ,the said assessment of the said real propeity may be reviewed and the said j"J. M NlZEL ► ATTORNEY.AT CAW• 548 ROANOKE AVENUE RIVERHEAD, NEW YORK 11901 � jl 1 assessment, corrected by the court and for such other and further relief as may be just and proper in the premises. Dated: Riverhead, New York —Td-ITN J. MUNZEL, Attorney for Petitioner 548 Roanoke Avenue Riverhead, New York 11901 (516) 727-7345 JoNN J IMUNZEt • ATTORNEY A,`LAW• FdR ROANOKE AVENUE'• I SUPREME. COURT:, STATE OF 14EW YORK j COUNTY OF SUFFOLK -----------------------------------------X In the Matter of the Application of EYLENE H. KING, PETITION FOR REVIEW Petitioner, OF ASSESSMENT -against- MELVILLE KELSEY, JR. , HENRY MOISA and CHARLES WATTS, Assessors of the Town of Southold, County of Suffolk and State of New York, Respondents. for review of the assessment of certain real property in the Town of Southold, County of Suffolk. ---------------- ------ --- - -- -X TO THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK I The petitioner above named, by JOHN J. MUNZEL, ESQ. , its attorney, respectfully shows to this court as follows: 1. -Your petitioner is and at all times hereinafter mentioned was a taxpayer i.V the Town of Southold, County ,of Suffolk, New York, and the owner of the premises hereinafter described and situated in said Town of Southold. 2. At all times' hereinafter mentioned said MELVILLE KELSEY, JR. , I HENRY MOISA and CHARLES WATTS were and now are the Assessors* of the Town of Southold. 3. That said assessors at all times hereinafter mentioned were authorized and required by Yaw, for the purposes of taxation, to assess and value all the real estate in said ''Town of Southold at its 'true and market value and on one common and general principle of valuation, which shall apply alike to all real estate assessed within said town, including improved and unimproved property, and in the case of improved, `to value JOHN J. MUNZEL + ATTORNEY AT LAW•548 ROANOKE AVENUE • RIVERHEAD, NEW YORK 11901 k i the land and the buildings and improvements thereon separately. 4 . On or before September 1; 1978, there was prepared and com- pleted by said assessors, a general assessment roll for said Town of. Southold for the year 1978-79 taxes. 5. When said assessment roll was completed, said assessors caused to ,be published in the official newspaper of said Town of Southold a notice of the competion thereof and that it might be seen and examinee at their offices, stating the time when they would hold a public hearing for the, purpose of hearing and determining all complaints as to said roll and reducing and correcting the same. '6. Your petitioner's said land and premises were assessed and described on said assessment roll for the year 1978-79 taxes for the Town of Southold as follows District No. 1001; 'Section 004 Block No. 10 Lot No. 031; Page No. 50 Book 1 and assessed at $28,600.00 . 7. At the time and place specified in said notice given by said assessors to review their assessments, and while said assessment roll could be segn and examined at their offices and said assessors had power e i to correct it, and while they were holding a public hearing for the purpo of hearing and determining all complaints against said roll and reducing j and correcting same, your petitioner, claiming to be aggrieved and feelin` unjustly, unfairly, unequally and illegally assessed, did duly complain and protest to said assessors on the assessments above set forth, and applied for a reduction of same, presenting to and filing with said asses ; Ors verified applications for said reductions,, wherein your petitioner complained that the assessments were erroneous by reason of overvaluation and inequality, in that the valuation for said properties' designated as follows are overvaluated to the extent and unequal as hereinafter stated, JOHN J.MUNZEL ATTORNEY AT LAW 548.ROANOKE AVENUE . RiV RH E EAO,NEW YORK 11901 II I i and asked that same be reduced accordingly, as follows: assessed valuatill! of property-$28,600. 00; amount of ovefvaluation claimed-$23,000.00; amoun assessment should be according to petitioner-$5,560 .00. 8. Thereafter,and on or about June 26 1978, your petitioner i i duly filed with the Board of Review of the Town of Southold a notice of appeal from the written decision of the Assessors denying petitioner' s application for the reduction of the assessments against the aforesaid property, and your petitioner, claiming to be aggrieved and feeling unjust unfairly, unequally and illegally assessed, did duly complain and protest at a meeting of the said Board of Review, against the form and amount of the assessments of his properties and against the assessed value thereof, as above set forth, and did apply for a correction and reduction of the same, and your petitioner did complain that the valuation was an over- valuation, that'none of the properties set forth in said assessment roll, . including the properties herein described had been assessed upon one conlmo and general principle of valuation which shall apply alike to all real estate assessed within said Town of Southold, as required by law, and that the assessments complained of were unequal and unjust in that each of pet- itioner' s properties was not assessed at its true and market value, and the assessments of other properties ,in said town on the same roll by the same officers, whichinequality and overvaluation resulted in injury to th owner of said property and specified as instances in which such inequality existed all other real estate in said Town of Southold, and that in order to be equal and proportionate with the assessment of other real property upon siad assessment roll, each of your petitioner' s said assessments show Le reduced to the sunt as aforesaid and as stated in said protests, and did ask that the same be reduced by said assessors and said Board of Review accordingly: JOHN J.MUNZEL ATTORNEY AT LAW•548 ROANOKE AVENUE• RIVERHEAD, NEW YORK 11901 I l 1i 9. That the statements contained in said applications thus sub- mitted to said assessors and to said Board of Review are true,., but that said assessors and said Board of Review, while they received and considere3 the protests of your petitioner, refdsed and failed to correct or reduce said assessments as requested or otherwise. 10. Thereafter, the said Board of Review made its final deter- mination on all applications, including petitioner' s and certified to said assessors its said determination on all applications for review of general assessments; and on or about the lst day .of September, 1978, made and file . in the Office of the Town Clerk of the Town of Southold, a correct and complete assessment roll. Said assessors thereupon gave the notice require- by law by publishing in the official newspaper of the Town of .Southold, on or about August 31, 1978 , notice of the completion of said tax roll, and thirty (30) days have not elapsed since the final completion and filing of said assessmgnt roll. 11. Your petitioner is assessed' on said assessment roll for the property above described at the valuations finally fixed and determined by said assessors and Board of Review, as above stated. ' 12. That said assessment of your petitioner' s properties is err- oneous and rroneous 'and illegal upon the following grounds: a) the assessed valuation herein is made at a higher proportionate valuation than are all other properties, particularlythose ._ of like kind on the same assessment roll, and b) it is a basis for unequal distribution of school aid and c) all assessments on the same assessment roll are made; at less than 100% of full market value. C. II�I JOHNt MNIL* ATTORNEY T LAW FdA R nAN OKE AVENUE R1 VERhEAa �I. NEW �i1C 90 11 f YORK 'I I 13. Your petitioner is aggrieved and injured by said overassess- ments and unequal and illegal said taxes, which she would not be required by law to pay if said assessments had been made correctly, properly and lawfully, and such unjust, unlawful, unequal, and excessive assessments will subject your petitioner to the payment of more taxes than she is leg-, ally required to pay. 14. No previous application has been made for the order sought herein or for any similar order or relief. WHEREFORE, your petitioner prays for the review by this Court, pursuant to the statutes in such cases made and provided, of the said assessment herein mentioned to the end that the decisions, determination, I n(] _i sessment of said assessors and of said Board of Review by reviewed I.-orrected by this court, and that said error of said" assessors and sal Beard of Review in assessing your petitioner' s properties and in reviewing and correcting such assessments may be corrected according to law, and that said assessments be reduced to a just amount, and that this court to evidence to enable your petitioner to`show the unequal , unjust, erroneoud and illegal assessment made against your petitioner and upon his property I, and that your petitioner may have such other and further relief as may be just and proper, together with the costs d disbursements of this pro- ceeding. Dated: Riverhead, New York LENE H.-KING Sworn to before me this / A-A day of September, 1978 JOHN J. MUNZEL NOTART PUBLIC State of New York No. 52-2818155 Suffolk. our us>i 'Fes 11erc 4, 19..... �I JOHN J. MUNZEL • ATTORNEY AT LAW• 548 ROANOKE AVENUE •'RIVERHEAD, NEW YORK 11901 I� 4 , STATE OF NEW YORK, COUNTY OF CERTIFICATION BY ATTORNEY The undersigned, an attorney admitted to practice in the courts of New York State, certifies that the within has been compared by the undersigned with the original and found to be a true and complete copy. Dated STATE OF NEW YORK, COUNTY OF ATTORNEY'S AFFIRMATION The undersigned, an attorney admitted to practice in the courts of New York State, shows: that deponent is the attorney(s) of record for in the within action; that deponent has read the foregoing and knows the contents thereof; that the same is true to deponent's own knowledge, except as to the matters therein stated to be alleged on information and belief, and that as to those matters deponent believes it to be true. Deponent further says that the reason this verification is made by deponent and not by The grounds of deponent's belief as to all matters not stated upon deponent's knowledge are as follows: The undersigned affirms that the foregoing statements are true, under the penalties of perjury. Dated: STATE OF NEW YORK, COUNTY OF , SS.: INDIVIDUAL VERIFICATION vyzaw. a. XIM being duly sworn, deposes and says that deponent is the ,1etLJ0A )the within action; that deponent has read the foregoing r and knows the contents thereof; that the same is true to deponent's own know e5ge exce�pt*A"o e ma herein stated to be leged on in rma- tion and belief, and that as to those matters deponent believes it to true. Sworn t..H or kmtOAL, NOTARY PUBLIC State of New York No. 52-281815S Suffolk Counter Ow"fniseloa Uoiret I *rch 30, 19.: STATE OF NEW YORK, COU O ss.: I CORPORATE VERIFICATION being duly sworn, deposes and says that deponent is the f the Corporation named in the within acti n; that deponent has- read the foregoing and knows the contents thereof; and that the same is true to deponent's own knowledge, except as to the matters therein stated to be alleged upon information and belief, and as to those matters deponent believes it to be true. This verification is made by deponent because is a corporation. Deponent is an officer thereof, to-wit, its The grounds of deponent's belief as to all matters not stated upon deponent's knowledge are as follows: Sworn to before me,this day of 19 STATE OF NEW YORK, COUNTY OF ss.: AFFIDAVIT OF SERVICE BY MAIL being duly sworn, deposes and says, that deponent is not a party to the action, is over 18 years of age and resides at , That on the day of 19 deponent served the within upon attorney(s) for in this action, at the address designated by said attorney(s) for that purpose by depositing a true copy of same enclosed in a postpaid properly addressed wrapper, in — a post office — officialdepository under the exclusive care and custody of the United States post office department within the State of New York. Sworn to before me, this day of 19 6' 1 Index No. Year 19 STATE OF NEW YORK COURT COUNTY OF in the Nattor of tho Applivationa T -4 is ArtioU 7 of 1 Property ftx Law of a, T I kropart7 ftx Awwassumt Why, IA. s1 t o «iE" AJ�14t JR,� f 901"* CMAW WA j. Ne"ASMS of the ' ° a County of Suffolk, St&X0 Of 11NOW YOrk, To Attorney(s) for Service of a copy of the within is hereby admitted Dated, Attorney(s) for Sir:—Please take notice NOTICE OF ENTRY that the within is a (certified true copy of a duly entered in the office of a clerk of the within named court on 19 NOTICE OF SETTLEMENT that an order of which the within is a true copy will bepresented for settlement to the HON. one of the judges of the within named Court, at t on the day of 19 at M. Dated, Yours, etc. JOHN J. MUNZEL RECEIVED 1MAT 1 Attorneys for TOWN OF SOUTHOLD Office and Post Office Address `� -12,,7 HOUR/2 548 Roanoke Ave. EATS Riverhead, New York 11901 DEn. /II,tttg1, er�7 Tel. 516-727-7345 C t 89—Summons without Notice,supreme Court,to."3 COPYRIONT 1073 MY JULIUB BLUMSERO,INC.,LAW I$LANK PUNLI®14[R9 Pe?60&KI S81'ViCE. ®O EXCHANGE PL. AT.BROADWAY, N.Y.C. IOU04 *mmna Mona of t4v, 01att nt New nrk Man"V at SUFFOLK Index No. n the matter or the Applicatidn tor a Ddu Plaintiff designates ical review under Article 7 of the Real Property Tax Law of a Real Property Tax Suffolk P Y P Y County as the place of trial Assessment by, ' MURRAY WEITMAN, The basis of the venue is Plaintiff residence of plainfiff against MELVILLE KELSEY, JR. , HENRY MOISA, CHARLES WATTS, Assessors of the Town of Southold, ltritrltitlt£� County of Suffolk, New York, Plaintiff resides at 1150 Blue Marlin Drive :w Southold, New York 11971 Defendant County of Suffolk To the above named Defendant I Von arr 4.errhy ,giixmjijj urb to answer the complaint in this action and to serve a copy of your answer, or, if the complaint is not served with this summons, to serve a notice of appearance, on the Plaintiff's Attorney(s) within, 20 days after the service of this summons, exclusive of the day of service (or within 30 days after the service is complete if this summons is not personally delivered to you within the State of New York); and in case of your failure to`appear or answer,judg- ment will be taken against you by default for the relief demanded in the complaint. Dated, September 14, 1978 JOHN J. MUNZEL, ESQ. Defendant's address: Main Road Attorney(s) for Plaintiff Southold, New York Post Office Address 548 Roanoke Avenue Riverhead, New York,11901 (516) 727-7345 SUPREME COURT: STATE OF NEW YORK COUNTY OF SUFFOLK ---------------------------------------- -X In the Matter of the Application for a Judicial Review under Article 7 of the Real Property NOTICE OF APPLICATION POR Tax Law of a Real Property Tax Assess- REVIEW OF ASSESSMENT ment, by MURRAY 1,TEITMAN Petitioner, -against- , MELVILLE KELSEY, JR. , HENRY MOTSA, and CHARLES WATTS, Assessors of the Town of Southold, County of Suffolk, State of New York, Respondents. ------- -------------------------------.._X PLEASE TAKE NOTICE that upon the petition of. MURRAY WWEITMAN, verified the 1 day of September, 1978 , a copy of which is annexed hereto, an application will be made at a Special Term of the Supreme Cour to be held in and for the County of, Suffolk, at. the County Court House, located at Griffing Avenue, Riverhead, New York on the 15 'day of November, 1978 at 10:00 o'clock in the forenoon of that day or as soon thereafter a counsel can be heard for the review, under Article 7 of the Real Property Tax Law of the State of New York, of the certain- assessment of for the year 1978-79 on real property owned by the petitioner and situate in the To°Nn of Southold, County of Suffolk and State of New York, being the real property described in the assessment roll as follows '- -Map 043853 Lot 12, Southold Shores, NEw York to the end that all proceedings,' decis- ions and actions in the matter of the said assessment of the said real JOHN J. MUNZEL • ATTORNEY AT LAW• $48 ROANOKE AVENUE • RIVERHEAD,NEW YORK 11901 property may be reviewed and the said assessment, corrected by the court and for such other and further relief as may be just and proper in the premises. Dated: Riverhead, New York 17 JOHN J. MUNZEL, ESQ. Attorney for Petitioner 548 Roanoke Avenue Riverhead, New York 11901 (516) 727-7345 I I x-- JOHN J.'MUNZEI. • ATTORNEY AT LAW • 548 ROANOKE AVENUE • RIVERHEAD, NEW YORK 11901 K: SUPREME COURT; STATE OF 14EW YORK COUNTY OF SUFFOLK - .. ----------- - ---------. -----X In the Matter of the Application of MURRAY WEITMAN, PETITION FOR REVIEW OF ArYSESSMENT Petitioner, -against- MELVILLE KELSEY, JR. , HENRY MOTSA, and CHARLES WATTS, assessors of the TownofSouthold, County of Suffolk, New York, Respondents. for review of the assessment of certait real property in the Town of Southold, County of Suffolk. ---------------------------------------X TO THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK: The petitioner above named, by JOHN J. MUNZEL, ESQ. , its attorney, respectfully shows to this court as follows: 1. Your petitioner is and at all times hereinafter mentioned was a taxpayer in the Town of Southold, County of Suffolk, New York, and the owner of the premises hereinafter described and situated in said Town of Southold. ' 2. At all times hereinafter mentioned said MELVILLE KELSEY, JR. , HENRY MOISA, and CHARLES WATTS were and now are the Assessors df'"the 'down of Southold. 3. That said assessors at all times hereinafter mentioned were k authorized and required by law, for the purpose of taxation, to assess ,an value all the real estate in said Town of Southold at its true and market '. value and on one common and general principle of valuation, which shall apply alike to all real estate assessed within said town, including imp- roved and unimproved property, and in the case of improved, to value the land and the buildings improvements thereon separately. Y I JOHN J. ML14%ft •`ATTOANEY AT LAW • 548 ROANOKE AVENUE• A14ERHWA NEW YORK 11901 I 4. on or before September 1, 1978, there was prepared and completed by said assessors, a general assessment roll for said Town of Southold for the year 1978-79 taxes. 5. When said assessment roll was completed, said assessors caused to be published in the official newspaper of siad Town of Southold a notice of the completion thereof and that it might be seen and examined at their offices, stating the time when they would hold a public hearing for the purpose of hearing and determining all complaints as to said roll and reducing and correcting the same. 6. Your petitioner's said land and premises were assessed and described on siad assessment roll for the year 1978--79 taxes for the Town of Southold as follows: Map 003853 , Lot 12, Southold .Shores, New York; and assessed at $9,500.00. 7. At the time and place specified in said notice coven by said assessors to review their assessments, and while said assessment roll could be seen and examined at their offices and said assessors had power to correct it, and while they were holding a public hearing for the pur- pose of hearing and determining all complaints against said roll and re- ducing and correcting the same, your petitioner, claiming to he aggr4eved and feeling unjustly, unf ,irly, unequally and illegally assessed, did dul compl4iii and protest to said assessors on the assessments above set forth and applied for a reduction of same, presenting to and filing with said assessors verified applications for said reductions, wherein your petiti complained that the assessments were erroneous by reason of overvaluation and inequality, in that the valuation for said properties designated as . II, follows are overvaluated to the extent and unequal as hereinafter stated, JOMN J.MiMM •ATTORNEY AT LAW• 548 ROANOKE AVENUE • RIVERHEAD, NEW Y0K 1180t reduced accordingly, as follows: assessed valuatio and asked that same be redu g y, of property-$. g,800,001 amount of overvaluation claimed-$400. 00 for land and. $1,7.00.00 for building, amount assessment should be according to petitioner-$2,700.00 for land and $5 ,000 .00 for building. 8. Thereafter', and on or about Jane 26 , 1978 , your petitioner duly filed with the Board of Review of the Town of Southold a notice of appeal from' the written decision of the Assessors denying petitioner ' s application for the reduction of the assessments against the aforesaid property, and your petitioner, claiming to be. aggrieved and feeling un- justly,unfairly, unequally and illegally assessed, did duly complain and protest at a meeting of the said Board of Review, agianst the form and amount of the assessments of his properties and agianst the assessed value , thereof, as above set forth, and did apply for a correction and -reduction r' of the game, and your petitioner did complain that the valuation was an Overvaluation, and further that the calculations for square footage and cost of the improvements made on said property were erroneous, that none of the properties set forth in said assessment roll, including the prop- erties herein described had been assessed upon one commckn_and general principle of valuation which shall apply alike to all real estate assesse within said Town of Southold, as required ;by law and that the assessments .,. complained of were unequal and unjust in that each of petitioner's prop- eries was not assessed at its true and market value, and the assessments thereof hadrbeen made 'at a higher proportionate value Than-the assessmenta.'; of other properties in said town on the same roll by the same officers, q y injury which �:ne ualit : and overvaluation resulted in in ur to the owner of sail ., j properties and specified as instances in which such inequality existed alb.<' other real estate in said Town of Southold, and that in order to be equals r,r J014N J.VUkZEI • ATTORNEY AT LAW► 5141 ROANOKE AYE*A • RIVERAEA©, NEW YORK 11901 and `r ortionate with the assessment of other real p op property upon said assessment roll, each of your petitoner's ,said assessments should be reduced to the sum as aforesaid and as stated in said ,protests, and 4,id f o ask that the same be reduced by said assessors and said Board of Review accordingly. 9. That the statements contained in said applications thus sub,* mitted -to said assessors and to said Board of Review are true, but that said assessors and said Board of .Review, while they received and consider( d ,`1a v� the protests of your petitioner, refused and failed to correct or reduce ; i; said assessments as requested or otherwise, In 10. Thereafter, the said Board of Review made its final determin- �j ation on all applications, including petitioner's and certified to said assessors its said determination on- all applications for review of genera assessments, and on or about the lst day of September, 1978, made and fila t I' in the office of the Town Clerk of the Town of Southold, a correct and r,..'01-q-let, r roll . Said assessors t.'C11?rou Son gave the notice. re- quired e-cuired �)y law by publishing in the official newspaper of the Town of Southold, on or about August 31, 1978, notice of the completion of said 4, tax roll, and thirty (30) days have not elapsed since the final completion and I i,Iing of said assessment roll. �j 11.x . Yout petitioner is assessed on said assessment roil far the properties above described at the valuations finally-fixed and determined by said ,assessors and Board of ReOiew, *as above stated. 12. That said assessment of 's petitioner's our y p properties is err- oneouSaand illegal upon the following grounds: a) the calaulati.ons for square -footage and cost of the im- provements made on said property were erroneous, and ' �` J�HM J R7tQANEY"�IT LAW• 5A8 RQAPft?KE AVIilJE • F19lg/1Q,NEIN YQRK'11�G1 . i, b) the assessed valuation herein is made at a higher pro- portionate valuation than are all other properties, particularly those of like kind on the same assessment roll , and c) all assessments on the same assessment roll are made at less than 100% of full market value. 13. Your petitioner is aggrieved and injured by said overassess- ments and unequal and illegal said taxes, which he 1►'ld not be required . by law to pay if said assessments had been made correctly, properly and lawfully, and such-unjust unlawful, unequal, and excessive assessments will subject your petitioner to the payment of more taxes than he is leg- ally required to pay. 14. No previous application has been made for the order sought herein or for any similar order or relief. WFIEREFORE, your petitioner prays for the review by this Court, pursuant to the statutes in such cases made and provided, of the said assessment herein mentioned to the end that the decisions, determination, and assessments of said assessors and of said Board of Review be reviewed Y and corrected by this court, and that said error of said"assessors and said 3 Board of Review in assessing your petitioner's properties and in review c and correcting such as'sesamnts may be corrected accordinq 'to law, and that, y said assessments be reduced to a just amount, and that this court take evidence to enable your petitioner to show the unequal, unjust, erroneous I C� and illegal assessment made against your petitioner and upon his property , q f and that your petitionetr may have such other and further relief as may be y , n lust and proper,_ together with the costs and disbursements of ,this proceed Dated: Riverhead, New York J ��, MURTM wE r N sworn to`;before ,me this 15` day of Seo*4 mber �i978 STATE OF NEW YORK, COUNTY OF CERTIFICATION BY ATTORNEY The undersigned, an attorney admitted to practice in the courts of New York State, certifies that the within has been compared by the undersigned with the original and found to be a true and complete copy. Dated STATE OF NEW YORK, COUNTY OF ATTORNEY`S AFFIRMATION The undersigned, an attorney admitted to practice in the courts of New York State, shows: that deponent is the attorney(s) of record for in the within action; that deponent has read the foregoing and knows the contents thereof; that the same is true to deponent's own knowledge, except as to the matters therein stated to be alleged on information and belief, and that as to those matters deponent believes it to be true. Deponent further says that the reason this verification is made by deponent and not by The grounds of deponent's belief as to all matters not stated upon deponent's knowledge are as follows. The undersigned affirms that the foregoing statements are true, under the penalties of perjury: Dated: STATE OF NEW YORK, COUNTY OF SS.: INDIVIDUAL VERIFICATION MIO. I , being duly sworn, deposes and says that deponent is the in the within action; that deponent has read the foregoing and knows the contents thereof; that the same is true to deponent's own knowledge, except as to the matters therein stated to be alleged on informa- tion and belief, and that as to those matters deponentbelieves it to be true. Sworn to before me, this day of 1 'S _ s� Y\oTKrL,A c ,`(1E� �0R(� rte %-t- a..ii-I 32,0 1= xp�rz+a5 MV-�-YZCN 3o, totC.C) STATE OF NEW YORK, COUNTY OF SS.: CORPORATE VERIFICATION , being duly sworn, deposes and says that deponent is the of the corporation named in the within action; that deponent has_ read the foregoing and knows the contents thereof, and that the same is true to cleponent's own knowledge, except as to the matters therein stated to be alleged upon information and belief, and as to those matters deponent believes it to be true. This verification is made by deponent because .is a corporation. Deponent is an officer thereof, to-wit, its The grounds of deponent's belief as to all matters not stated upon deponent's knowledge are as follows: Sworn to before me,this day of 19 _ STATE OF NEW YORK, COUNTY OF Ss.: AFFIDAVIT OF SERVICE BY MAIL being duly sworn, deposes and says, that deponent is not a party to the action, is over 18 years of age and resides at , That on the day of 19 deponent served the within upon attorney(s) for in this action, at the address designated by said attorney(s) for that purpose by depositing a true copy of same enclosed in a postpaid properly addressed wrapper, in — a post office — official depository under the exclusive care and custody of the United States post office department within the State of New York. Sworn to before me, this day of 19 Index No. Year 19 STATE OF NEW YORK COURT COUNTY OF - y T t Of t rr-JCS *» 46k SOL*l R4146W WAW AXtUIA I Of 1 a arty t by u'l L i # JR, iurarAy o MIC689 WATTS, .gazes I o , comty of stiff , m of Wow York, e o1:'x m. AS89SSMW � AFISTUSSMV41T To Attorney(s) for Service of a copy of the within is hereby admitted Dated, r Attorney(s) for Sir:—Please take notice NOTICE OF ENTRY that the within is a (certified true copy of a duly entered in the office of a clerk of the within named court on 19 NOTICE OF SETTLEMENT that an order of which the within is a true copy will bepresented for settlement to the HON. one of the judges of the within named Court, at on the day of 19 at M. Dated, Yours, etc. JOHN J. MUNZEL RECEIVED BY Attorneys for TOWN OF SOUTHOLD HATE HOUR; Office and Post Office Address L - 548 Roanoke Ave. z _ D `r. S S 4 „S o)P S Riverhead, New York 11901 or Tel. 516-727-7345 KI"" C 199—Summons without Notice,Supreme Court.10-7$ COPYSIGHT 1873 BY JULIUS BLUMBERG,INC.,LAW BLANK PUBLISHERS Persona]Service. 80 ExcHANGE PL. AT BROADWAY, N.Y.C. 10004 Onprrmr Tone of tot J*Ia#r of Xrw 'V'Uark ToUntil 11f SUFFOLK Index No. In the Matter of the Application for Judicial Plaintiff designates Review under Article 7 of the Real Property Su fol Tax Law of a Real Property Tax Assessment by Coun y as a place of trial DONALD G. KING, The basis of the venue is residence of the Plaintiff Plaintiff MELVILLE KELSEY, JR, against HENRY MOISA, and CHARLES WATTS, Assessors of the Town ofllUtritIIri Southold, County of Sugfolk, State of New York Plaintiff resides at Rocky Point. Road East Marion, NY Defendant County of Suffolk To the above named Defendant Vou arr 4pxrh_q guntutonjob to answer the complaint in this action and to serve a copy of your answer, or, if the complaint is not served with this summons, to serve a notice of appearance, on the Plaintiff's Attorney(s) within 20 days after the service of this summons, exclusive of the day of service (or within 30 days after the service is complete if this summons is not personally delivered to you within the State of New York); and in case of your failure to appear or answer, judg- ment will be taken against you by default for the relief d6manded in the complaint. Dated, September 13, 1978 JOHN J. MUNZEL, ESQ. Defendant's address: Main Road Attorney(s) for Plaintiff Southold, NY Post Office Address .548 Roanoke Avenue Riverhead, NY 11901 (516) 727-7345 SUPREME COURT: STATE OF NEW YORK COUNTY OF SUFFOLK ------------------------ --------- ------------X In the Matter of the Application for a Judicial Review under Article 7 of the Real Property NOTICE OF APPLICATION Tax Law of a Real Property Tax Assess- FOR REVIEW OF ASSESS- ment, by MENT DONALD G. KING, Petitioner, i -against- i MFLVILLE KELSEY, JR. , HENRY MOISA, and CHARLES WATTS, Assessors of the Town of Southold, County of Suffolk and State of New York, Respondents. ------------------------ ----_- -----_-X PLEASE TAKE NOTICE that upon the petition of DONALD G. KING, verified the day of September, 1978, a copy of which is annexed hereto, an application will be made at a Special Term of the Supreme Cour to be held ,in and for the County of Suffolk, at the County Court House, located at Griffing Avenue, Riverhead, New York on the 15th day of November 1978 at 10: 00 o'clock in the forenoon of that day or as soon thereafter :'a - counsel can be heard for the review, under Article 7 of the Real Property Tax Law of the State of New York, of the certain assessment of $49,700.00 for the year 19.78-79 on real property owned by the petitioner and situate in the Town of Southold, County of Suffolk and State of New York, being the real property described in the assessment roll as follows: District 1001; Section 004; Block 09; Lot 028. 002 and 028.001 to the end that all i JOHN J. MUNZEL • ATTORNEY AT LAN✓• 548 ROANOKE --AVENUE • RIVERHEAD, NEN YORK'14d01 1f. proceedings, decisions and actions in the matter of the said assessment o the said real property may be reviewed and the said assessment, corrected jw by the court and for such other and further relief as ma„y be just and proper in the premises. Dated: September , 1978 -' JOHN J MUNI ESQ. Attorney for Petitioner 548 Roanoke Avenue Riverhead, New York 11901 (516) 727-7345 i z,l `i q it it J014N'J, MUI*OL • AtTOANVEY AT LAW• W ROANOKE AVENUE • RIVERHEAD, NEW YORK 11901 SUPPfj4E COURT:, STATE OF NEW YORK CITY OF SUFFOLK -----------------------------------------X In the Matter of the Application of DONALD G. KING, PETITION FOR RFVIEY. OF Petitioner, ASSESSMENT -against- MELVILLE KELSEY, JR. , HENRY MOTSA, and CHARLES WATTS, Assessors of the Town of Southold, County of Suffolk, New York, Respondents.. for review of the assessment of certain real property in the Town of Southold, County; of Suffolk. ------- --------------------------------X p TO THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATI OF NEW 'YORK: The petitioner abo named, by JOHN J. MUNfEL, ESQ. , its att- orney, respectfully shows to this court as follows: 1. Your petitioner is and at all._,times hereinafter mentioned was a taxpayer in the Town of S+puthold, County of Suffolk, New York, and the owner of the premises herefter described and situated in said Town of Southold. AX 2. At all times hi inafter mentioned said MELVILLE KELSEY, JR. , HENRY MOISA, and CHARLES V&TS were and now are the Assessors of the Town of Southold. 3. That said assessors at all the times hereinafter mentioned were authorized and required by law, for the purpose of taxation, to assess' and value all the real estate in said Town of Southold at its true and market value and on one poaa+non and general principle of valuation, which shall apply alike to all Veal estate assessed within said town, including JOHN J.MUNEEI • ATTORNEY AT LAW+ 549 ROANOKE AVENUE • RtVERHEAQ, NEW YORK 11901 �s i improved roved and unimproved property,, and in the case of improved to value th F`' p P y A _ 4 land and the buildings and improvements thereon separately. 4 . On or Y)efore September 1, 1978 there was prepared and �! completed by said assessors a general assessment roll .for said, Town of i couthold for the year 1978-79 taxes. 5 . When said assn=_ssrtent roll was completed, saki asse ysors caused to be i?ublished in the officinal newspaper of said Town of Southold a notice of the completion thereof and that it rniqht be- seem and examined'. 3t their offices, stating the tints: when they would'.. hold a public hearing {�sr the purpose of hearing and determining all complaints as to said roll_ z n,a reducing and correcting the same. b .; your Peti,tioiZcY ' sai,-1 land and, r�re�se:� ra+�x-e assessed an c ci �er3 on said asses m.,, int roll fbi° th"e-` year 1)7'8 i s for the Town of Southold as follows. District 1001; Section 0041 . ;:l s 020.;00 ;Ind 028 .001; assessed at $49 ,700 .00. 7. At the time and place specified in.' said no t'0e given by 11 , said assessors to review their assessments, and while said. 4s 8srrent ro.1 at thc— < o ff1..:5-{, ;; iad asses: :r ,-I pt]'i c�r .j �hile +_-;htwere hold-ing a pui-Aic hearing. for the , urpo of tearing and determining all, complaints against said ro,l.l' and reducing and correcting the same, your petitioner, claimi.ng to ke aggri:eved and feeling unjustly, unfairly, unequally and illegally assessed, diel duly complain and protest to said assessors can the assessments above set for".01 and applied ' c� r,,a reduction of same, presenting to and filing with said assessors Vitrified applications for said reductions, wherein your petition, conplained that the assessments were erroneous by reason of ovetValuati.on fI and inequality,, :in that "the valuation for said properties designated as follows are overvaluated to the extent and unequal as hereinafter" st- ited, JOHN J.MUNZEL • ATTORNEY AT LAW• 548 ROANOKE AVENUE • RIVERHEAD, NEW YORK 11901 " and asked that sane be reduced accordingly, as follows: assessed valuatio of property-$49,700.0011 amount of overvaluation claimed '$'12,700.00., amount,' asseesibmt should be according to petitioner_$17,0110.0-0. 8. Thereafter, and on or about June 26, ' .%978, your pe'titione duly filed with the Board 'of Review of the Town of Southold a `notice of appeal from the written decision of the rAsessors denying petitioner's application. fear the reduction of the asOessments against tie aforesaid property, and your petitioner, claiming to be aggrieved and feeling unju.41. unfairly, unequally and `:illegally assexsd, , did duly complain and protest at a meeting of the said Board of ReViipw, against the form a'nd' amount of II the assessments of his pr+ape=tires a ageinst the;`,aises$ed value thereof, as above set Forth, and +did"`apllr matin Mreduction of the ! same, and your petitioner did complain tlt ,` alti was an over V valuation, that none of the properties set forth in " *end, �'400.ssftnont roll, .in- ludin<g the properties herein described had been assessed upon one rarsrt � rarn(I -general pr.incl-ble of valuation which shall apply alike to all : M x e6taL�_ asscsLie i within said Town of Southold, as required by law, an that the assessments complained of- were unequal and unjust in that each o n petitioner' s properties was not assessod . at its true and market value, a the assessments thereof had been made at a higher proportionate value t the assessments of other properties in said town can the same roll by the ,same officers, which inequality and overvaluation resulted 'in injury to tIO owner of said properties and specified as instances in which such inequal existed all other real estate ineai4 ,T*wv 'of Southold, and `that in order to be equal and proportionate with the assessment of other read,, property upon said assessment roll, each of your petitioner`s said assessments should be - reductd "to the sum as aforesaid and as stated in said protests, and did. ask that the same be reduced; by said assessors and said Board of Review. according;y. , JOHN J."ANUNZE4 • ATTORNEY AT LAW+ 548 130ANOKE A1►#NUE• RIVERHEAD, NEW Yt3i21Z 11f101 it : �J:.. L..... ...�, ..om. I' 9 That the statements contained in s, aid applications thus submitted to said assessors and to said Board of Review are true , but that said assessors and said $card of Review," while they received and n considered the protests of your petitioner, refused and failed to correct or reduce said assessments as requested or otherwise. 10. Thereafter, the said Board of Review made its final deter- mination on all applications, including petitioner's,and certified to saic F assessors its said determination on all applications for review of genera assessments; and on or about the lst day of September, 1978, ifiade and fil in the Office of the Town Clerk of the Town of Southold a correct and 7 complete assessment roll. Said assessors thereupon gave the notice re.- wired by law by publishing in the official newspaper of the Town of Southold, on or about August 32 , 197$, notice of the completion of" said i tax roll , and thirty (30) days have not elapsed since the final completion ii and filing of said assessment roll. i! 11. Your petitioner is assessed on said assessment roll for the properties above described at the valuations finally fixed and deter- mined by said assessors and Board of Review, as above stated. 12. . That said assessment of your petitioner's properties is t erroneous and illegal, upon the following grounds a) the assessed valuation herein is made at a higher pro- portionate valuation than are all other properties, particularly those of like kind on the same assessment roll, and b) it is the basis for unequal distribution of school aid c) all assessments on the same assessment roll are made al- less than 100% of full market value. JOHN J.MUNZEL • ATTORNEY AT LAW• 548 ROANOKE AVENUE • RIVERHEAD, NEW YORK 11901 _ 13. Your petitioner is aggrieved and injured by said over- assessments and unequal and illegal said taxes, which he would not be re- quired by law to pay if said assessments had been made correctly, properly and lawfully, and such unjust, unlawful, unequal, and exc7issive 'assessment will subject .your petitioner to the payment of more taxes than he is legally required to pay. 1.4. No previous application has been made for the order sought herein: or' for. any similar order or relief. WHEREFORE, your petitioner prays for the review by this Court pursuant to the statutes in such cases made and provided, of the said assessment herein mentioned to the end that the decisions, determination, and .assessments of said, assessors and of said Board of Review be reviewed and corrected by this court, and that said error of said assessors and sai � _ i Board of Review in assessing your petitioner's properties and in reviewing ! , j and correcting such assessments may be corrected- according to law, and tha � said assessments be reduced to a just amount., and that this court take evidence to enable your petitioner to show .the unequal, unjust, erroneous 1 and illegal assessment made against your petitioner and upon his propertied and that your petitioner may have such other and further relief -as may be just and proper, together with the costs and disbursements of this proceed: ng. Dated Riverhead, New York DONALD G. KI Sworn to before me this .9 day of. September, 1978 ►oru+ S. auNZEL JO4IN J. MU�T2EL, ESQ..' LIC State 0s New York T PUBLIC Attorney for Petitioner 155°Su{f 6 0. I V7 No: 52-28 ,ah 30. 19...E.. .01� ..+:�a 548 Roanoke Avenue { Riverhead, flew York 11901 I JOHN J.MWZEL A'TTQRI fEY AT LAW• 548 ROANOKE AVENUE RtVERHEAp, NEW Y©AK 11901 ,v r r c . STATE OF NEIN YORK, COUNTY OF CERTIFICATION BY ATTORNEY The undersigned, an attorney admitted to practice in the courts of New York State, certifies that the within has been compared by the undersigned with the original and found to be a true and complete copy. Dated _ STATE OF NEW YORK, COUNTY OF ATTORNEYS AFFIRMATION The undersigned, an attorney admitted to practice in the courts of New York State, shows: that deponent is the attorney(s) of record for in the within action; that deponent has read the foregoing and knows the contents thereof; that the same is true to deponent's own knowledge, except as to the matters therein stated to be alleged on information and belief, and that as to those matters deponent believes it to be true. Deponent further says that the reason this verification is made by deponent and not by The grounds of deponent's belief as to all matters not stated upon deponent's knowledge are as follows. The undersigned affirms that the foregoing statements are true, under the penalties of perjury. Dated: STATE OF NEW YORK, COUNTY OF SS.: INDIVIDUAL VERIFICATION # .. being duly sworn, deposes and says that e is the Petitioner in the within action; that deponent has read the foregoing fi tioe & petition and knows the contents thereof; that the same is true to deponent's own knowledge, except as to the matters therein stated to be alleged on informa- tion and belief, and that as to those matters deponent believes it t�e true. Sworn to before me, this�_911� ay of 19 JOHN J. MUNzr1. t AL G. KING NOTARY PUBLIC Stafe of New Yor No. 52-291&i SS Suffolk Court Commission Expires March 30, 14:.11. STATE OF NEW YORK, COUNTY SS.. CORPORATE VERIFICATION being duly sworn, deposes and says that deponent is the of the corporation named in the within action; t at deponent has_ read the foregoing and knows the contents thereof; and that the same is true to deponent's own knowledge, except as to the matters therein stated to be alleged upon information and belief,and as to those matters deponent believes it to be true. This verification is made by deponent because is a corporation. Deponent is an officer thereof, to-wit, its The grounds of deponent's belief as to all matters not stated upon deponent's knowledge are as follows: Sworn to before me,this day of 19 — STATE OF NEW YORK, COUNTY OF Ss.: AFFIDAVIT OF SERVICE BY MAIL being duly sworn, deposes and says, that deponent is not a party to the action, is over 18 years of age and resides at , That on the day of 19 deponent served the within upon attorney(s) for in this action, at the address designated by said attorney(s) for that purpose by depositing a true copy of same enclosed in a postpaid properly addressed wrapper, in — a post office — official depository under the exclusive care and custody of the United States post office department within the State of New York. Sworn to before me, this day of 19 Index No. Year 19 STATE OF NEW YORK SUPRA . COURT COUNTY OF SUFFOLK In the ;fatter of the Application for a Judicial Review under Article 7 of the. Read. Property 'fax Law of a Real Property Tax Asses t, by, DO IAL13 G. KING, Petitioner, -against- MELVILLE KELSEY, JR. , UNRY MOISA, CHARLES WATTS, Assess>ros of the Town of Southold, County of Suffolk, State of New, York, Respondents. NOTICE OF` APPLICATIO1FOR REVIEW OF ASSESSHFUl.�, PETITION FOR REVIEW OF ASSESSMENT To Attorney(s) for Service of a copy of the within is hereby admitted Dated, Attorney(s) for Sir:—Please take notice NOTICE OF ENTRY that the within is a (certified true copy of a duly entered in the office of a clerk of the within named court on 19 NOTICE: OF SETTLEMENT that an order of which the within is a true copy will bepresented for settlement to the HON. one of the judges of the within named Court, at on the, day of 19 at M. Dated, Yours, etc. JOHN J. MUNZEL ? EI' .ED BY Attorneys for `OWN SOUTH ULD Office and Post Office Address 548 Roanoke Ave. BATE �r, / ,7 ' HOUR 23 ;26 Riverhead, New York 11901 DEPT. ' Tel. 516-727-7345 � . A, � -- C 199—Summons without Notice,Supreme Couvt.10-73 COPYRIGHT 1073 BY JULIUS BLUMBERG,INC.,LAW BLANK PUBLISHERS Personal Service. 80 EXCHANGE PL. AT BROADWAY, N.Y.C. 10004 *uVrrmp Tourt of t4r *tatr of Nrw Vnrk Tountil of SUFFOLK Index No. Plaintiff designates In the Matter of the Application for a Jud- Suffolk icial review under Article 7 of the Real County as the place of trial Property Tax Law of a Real Property Tax Asse s- ment by The basis of the venue is DONALD G. KING, residence of plaintiff Plaintiff against MELVILLE KELSEY, JR. , HENRY MOISA, CHARLES WATTS, Assessors of the Town of Southold, ftutmotto County of Suffolk, State +6f New York Plaintiff resides at Rooky Point Road I East Marion, New York Defendant County of Suffolk I To the above named Defendant j i Vou arr 4rrrhll immutunjed to answer the complaint in this action and to serve a copy of your answer, or, if the complaint is not served with this summons, to serve a notice of appearance, on the Plaintiff's Attorney(s) within 20 days after the service of this summons, exclusive of the day of service (or within 30 days after the service is complete if this summons is not personally delivered to you within the State of New York); and in case of your failure to appear or answer, judg- ment will be taken against you by default for the relief demanded in the complaint. Dated, September 13, 1978 Defendant's address: Main Road JOHN J. MUNZEL, ESQ, Southold, New York Attorney(s) for Plaintiff 548 Roanoke Avenue Riwcer' dNaw York 11901 (516) 727-7345 . 1 SUPREME-COURT: STATE OF NEW YORK COUNTY OF SUFFOLK ------------------------------------------X In the Matter of the Application for a Judicial Review ' NOTICE OF APPLICATION FOR under. Article 7 of the Real Property Tax Law of a Real Property Tax Assess- ment, by DONALD G. KING, i Petitioner, against- ;j MBLVILLE KELSEY, JR. , HENRY MOISA, and CHARLES WATTS, Assessors of the Town of Southolds, County of Suffolk and State of New York, Respondents. ----_ -------- -- --- .-------g PLEASE TAKE NOTICE that upon` the petition of DONALD G. KING, � llpv ri_fied the day of September, 1975 , a copy of which is annexed ` .I i Fie, an applicatJon will be made at a Special Term of the Supreme Court to be held in and for the County of Suffolk, at the County Court Mouse, located at Griffing Avenue, Riverhead, New York on the 15th"` day of Novem e,r,� 197$ at 1000 o'clock in the forenoon of that day or as soon thereafter as counsel can be heard for the review, under Article 7 of the *I property r= Tax Law of the State of New York, of the certain assessment of, $14,70E �447 for the year 1978-79 on real property owned by the petitioner and. situ:-.i-e in the Town of Southold, County of Suffolk, State of New York, being the real property described i% the assessment roll as follows: District 1000; Section 21; Block 3; and Lot 16 to the end that all proceedings, decisions JOHN J. MUNZEL • ATTORNEY AT LAW• 548 ROANOKE AVENUE • RIVERHEAD, NEW YORK 11901 C and actions in the matter of the said assessment of the said real property may be reviewed and the said assessment, corrected by the court and for such other and further relief as may be just and proper in the premises. Dated: Riverhead, New York September ,1978 JOHN J. MUNZFL, rSQ. Attorney for Petitioner 548 Roanoke Avenue Riverhead, New York 1190.1. (516) 727-7345 JOHN J. MUNZEL • ATTORNEY AT LAW • 546 ROANOKE AVENUE • RIVERHEAD, NEW YORK 11901 I II I I SUPREME COURT: STATE OF NEW YORK COUNTY OF SUFFOLK ------------------------------------- - -------X In the Matter of the Application of DONALD G. KING PETITION FOR REVIPW OF � pp ASSESSMENT � Petitioner, -against- 4 MELVILLE KELSEY, JR. HENRY MOISA, and CHARLES WATTS, Assessors of the Town of Southold, County of Suffolk, New York, r Respondents . for review of the assessment of certain real property in the Town of Southold, County of Suffolk ---------------------------------------------X TO THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORE: The petitioner above named, by JOHN J. MUNZEL, ESQ. , its attorney, respectfully shows to this court as follows: 1. Your petitioner is and at all times hereinafter mentioned was a taxpayer in the Town of Southold, County of Suffolk, New York, and the i owner of the premises hereinafter described and situated in „said Town of Southold. 2 . At all times hereinafter mentioned said MELVILLE KELSEY, JR. , HENRY MOISA, and CHARLES WATTS were and now are the Assessors of the Town f Southold. 3. That said assessors at all the times hereinafter mentioned were uthotrized and required by law, for the purpose of taxation, to assess and value all the real estate in said Town of Southold at its true and market value and on one common and general principle of valuation, which shall apply RIVERHEAD,NEW YORK 11901 J014N J. MUNZEL • ATTORNEY AT LAW • 548 ROANOKE AVENUE'• alike to all real estate assessed within said town, including improved and unimproved property, and in the case of improved to value the land and the buildings and improvements thereon separately. 4 . on or before September 1, 1978, there was phepared and complet d by said assessors a general assessment roll for said Town of Southold for the year 1978-79 taxes. 5. When said assessment roll was completed, said assessors caused to be published in the official newspaper of said Town of Southold, a notice of the completion thereof and that it might be seen and examined at their offices, stating the time when they would hold a public hearing for the purpose of hearing and determining all complaints as to said roll and re- ducing and correcting the same. 6 . Your petitioner' s said land and premises were assessed and des- cribed on said assessment roll for the year 1978-79 taxes for the Town of Southold as follows: 1000-21-3-16; assessed at $14 ,700.00. 7. At the time and place specified in said notice given by said assessors to review their assessments, and while said assessment roll could be seen and examined at their offices and said assessors had power to correct it, and while they were holding a public hearing for the purpose o hearing and determining all complaints against said roll and reducing and correcting the same, your petitioner, claiming to be aggreived, and feeling unjustly, unfairly, unequally and illegally assessed, did duly complain an protest to said assessors on the assessments above set forth,'"and applied for a reduction of same, presenting to and filing with said assessors ver- ified applications for said reductions, wherein your petitioner complained that the assessments were erroneous by reason of overvaluation and inequal- ity, in that the valuation for said properties designated as follows are II JOHN J. MUNZEL • ATTORNEY AT LAW • 548 ROANOKE AVENUE • r''ITRNEAD, NEW YORK 11901 i { are overvaluated to the extent and unequal as hereinafter stated, and aske that same be reduced accordingly, as follows: assessed valuation of prop- erty-$14 ,700.00, amount of overvaluation claimed-$3, 300 . 00, amount assess- ment should be according to petitioner-$11 ,400.00. 8. Thereafter, and on or about Ju e 26 , 1978, your petitioner dux filed with the Board of Review of the Town of Southold a notice of appeal from the written decision of the Assessors denying petitioner' s applicatio for the reduction of the assessments against the aforesaid property, and your petitioner, claiming to be aggrieved and feeling unjustly, unfairly, unequally and illegally assessed, did duly complain and protest at a meeti g ';. of the said Board of Review, against the form and amount of the assessment of his properties and against the assessed value thereof, as above set far hl, s and did apply for a correction and reduction of thesame, and your petitioner ,.] did complain that the valuation was an overvaluation, that none of the properties set forth in said assessment roll,including the property herein described had been assessed upon onecommon and general principle of valuation`, which shall apply alike to all real estate assessed within said Town of Southold, as required by law, and that the assessments complained of were unequal and unjust in that each of petitioner's properties was not assessed at its true and market value, and the assessments thereof had been made at a higher proportionate value than the assessments of other properties in ,said town on the same roll by the same officers, which inequality and over- valuation resulted in injury to the owner of said properties and specified as instances in which such inequality existed all other real estate in said Town of Southold, and that in order to be equal and proportionate with the assessment of other real property upon said assessment roll, each of your petitioner' s said assessments should be reduced to the sum as aforesaid an JOHN J. MUNZEL • ATTORNEY AT LAW• 548 ROANOKE AVENUE • RIVERH= IN!rl r r as stated in said protests, and did ask that the same be reduced by said assessors and said Board of Review accordingly. 9. That the statements contained in said applications thus sub- mitted to said assessors and to said Board of Review are true, but that said assessors and said Board of Review, while they received and considered the protests of your petitioner, refused and failed to correct or reduce said assessments as requested or otherwise. 10. Thereafter, the said Board of Review made its final determinat of on all applications , including petitioner ' s, 4nd certified to saidassessor its said determination on all applications for review of general assessments, and on or about the lst day of September, 1978, made and filed in the Office of the Town Clerk of the Town of Southold a correct and complete assessment roll. Said assessors thereupon gave the notice required by law by publishint in the official newspaper of the Town of Southold, on or about August 31, 1978 notice of the completion of said tax roll, and thirty (30) days have not elapsed since the final completion and filing of said assessment roll. 11. Your petitioner is assessed on said assessment roll for the properties above described at the valuations finally fixed and determined by said assessors and Board of Review, as above stated. 12. That said assessment of your petitioner' s properties is erron- eous and illegal upon the following grounds : a) the assessment is made gat a higher_ proportionate valuatio than are all other properties, particularly those of like kind on the same assessment roll, and b) all assessments on the same assessment roll are made at less than 100% of full. market value, and JOHN J. MUNZEL • ATTORNEY AT LAW • 54e ROANOKE AVENUE• RIVERHEAD. NEW YORK 11901 ��c f c) the computations of the basic value of the property to- gether with the floor plan thereof is in error in the computation of actual living space. 13. Your petitioner is aggrieved and injured Ly said overassess- ments and unequal and illegal said taxes, which he would not be required by law to pay if said assessments had been made correctly, properly and lawfully, and such unjust, unlawful , unequal and excessive assessments will subject your petitioner to the payment of more taxes than he is legally required to pay. 14. No previous application has been made for the order sought herein or for any similar order or relief. WHEREFORE, your petitioner prays for the review by this Court, pursuant to the statutes in such cases made and provided, of the said I assessment herein mentioned to the end that the decisions, determinations, and assessments of said assessors and of said Board of Review by reviewed and corrected by this Court, and that said error of said assessors and said Board of Review in assessing your petitioner' s property and in reviewing and correcting such assessments may be corrected according to law, and that said assessments be reduced to a just amount, and that this Court take evidence to enable your petitioner to show the unequal, unjust, erroneous and illegal assessment made against your petitioner and upon his properties and that your petitioner may have such other and further relief as may be just and proper, together with the costs and disbursements of this proceeding!, Dated: Riverhead, New York DONALD/-G-. KZ Sworn to before me this .- 30NN J. MUNZEL NDTA" PUBLIC S'a`s of New 4o& a f ptemb r, 1978 No. 52-2e18 ,, coun i�io� Eatpire� march 30 �Q1 , 19 0 ATTI)PINIKV 4T 14111? 0 C(,IP', a'1'14011=1;, 1c " P11f_.I' . r.... STATE OF NEW YORK, COUNTY OF CERTIFICATION BY ATTORNEY The undersigned, an attorney admitted to practice in the courts of New York State, certifies that the within has been compared by the undersigned with the original and found to be a true and complete copy. Dated STATE OF NEW YORK, COUNTY OF ATTORNEY'S AFFIRMATION The undersigned, an attorney admitted to practice in the courts of New York State, shows: that deponent is the attorney(s) of record for in the within action; that deponent has read the foregoing and knows the contents thereof; that the same is true to deponent's own knowledge, except as to the matters therein stated to be alleged on information and belief, and that as to those matters deponent believes it to be true. Deponent further says that the reason this verification is made by deponent and not by The grounds of deponent's belief as to all matters not stated upon deponent's knowledge are as follows: The undersigned affirms that the foregoing statements are true, under the penalties of perjury. Dated: STATE OF NEW YORK, COUNTY OF SS.c INDIVIDUAL VERIFICATION Yom, . Q. $ being duly sworn, deposes and says that deponent is the fttitiaww in the within action; that deponent has read the foregoing tiand knows the contents thereof; that the same is tripe to deponent's own now a gase, except o e matters therein stated to be alleged on informa- tion and belief, and that as to those matters deponent belie true. Sworn to before me this J,-,C?deponent _ 30KN 3, MONZEC NOTARY P'39L;C Sfafe of New Yo No. s?-28'3'S5 Suffolk Count Commission Expires March 30, 14.*STATE OF NEW YORK, COUNTSS.: CORPORATE VERIFICATION being duly sworn, deposes and says that deponent is the of the corporation named in the within action; th has_ read the foregoing and knows the contents thereof; antatthe same is true to deponent's own knowledge, except as to the matters therein stated to be alleged upon information and belief, and as to those matters deponent believes it to be true. This verification is made by deponent because is a corporation. Deponent is an officer thereof, to-wit, its The grounds of deponent's belief as to all matters not stated upon deponent's knowledge are as follows: Sworn to before me,this day of 19 _ STATE OF NEW YORK, COUNTY OF SS.: AFFIDAVIT OF SERVICE BY MAIL being duly sworn, deposes and says, that deponent is not a party to the action, is over 18 years of age and resides at , That on the day of 19 deponent served the within upon attorney(s) for in this action, at the address designated by said attorney(s) for that purpose by depositing a true copy of same enclosed' in a postpaid properly addressed wrapper, in — a post office — official depository under the exclusive care and custody of the United States post office department within the State of New York. Sworn to before me, this day of 19 r r , Index No. Year 19 STATE OF NEW YORK - >� COURT COUNTY OF Mattvw of t1w Applicatioua Judicial Axtiale I rty Tax low a PAml Propwty T . vWat by . Sim{ 99X Vx , s :` XOSSAr "° ,e alk S Ot the Respondents, M"ITION RVI M-N-TIL11 Or To Attorney(s) for Service of a copy of the within is hereby admitted Dated, Attorney(s) for Sir:—Please take notice NOTICE OF ENTRY that the within is a (certified true copy of a duly entered in the office of a clerk of the within named court on 19 NOTICE OF SETTLEMENT that an order of which the within is a true copy will bepresented for settlement to the HON. one of the judges of the within named Court, at on the day of 19 at M. Dated, Yours, etc. JOHN J. MUNZEL ��+ Attorneys for REC COVED BY Office and Post Office Address TOWN OF SOUTHOLD 548 Roanoke Ave. DATE 9' O UR f �D Riverhead, New York 11901 f� Tel. 516-727-7345 D6T. 4,s- ter d G-1 SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK COUNTY OF SUrFOLK ---------------------------------------------x In the Matter of the Application of NOTICE SUBURAZA MXUL SxYZMIB AM LMN "AMIA3IONg Index #: 74�13li1� Petitioner, -against- THE BOARD OF ASSESSMENT REVIEW & THE RECEIVED BY "SUBS" or TSS I*" or t us TOW14 OF SOUTHOLD T4iMIN or StiuY13SE#o v DATEJ�i�� 7r1i01R //'A Respondents . EPT. � �! For Review of a Tax Assessment Under '�`L�a Article 7 of. the Real Property Tax Law. ------------------------------------------ SIRS: PLEASE TAKE NOTICE that upon the annexed petition verified the lith day of Ssptanbet 1978 , an application will be made at Special 'lam# Part IV of the Supreme Court of the State of New York , to be held in and for the County ofStflolk at the Courthouse located a9"Oft Soul*V4Z1d,»ay Sh"** New TO rk ori the 13tk' day of 00t0br , 19'4 , at the opening of Court on that day for review under Article 7 of the Real Property Tax Law of the assessment upon petitioner's real property described in the petition , and for such other and further relief as to the Court may seem just and proper. DATED: Mineola, New York 8aptembwt 11 192 Yours , etc , MATTHEW J. CRONIN Attorney for Petitioner 1539 Franklin Avenue Mineola , New York 11501 Our file # Tel: 516-741-8144 2l�1 TO: THE BOARD OF ASSESSMENT t chi►&� or r ul TO= or SOMMoLD G-2 PETITION TO THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK COUNTY OF SUFFOU Petitioner respectfully shows and alleges: 1 . The above captioned Petitioner whose post office address is c/o MATTHEW J. CRONIN, ESQ. , 1539 Franklin Avenue, Mineola, N.Y. , 11501 , at all times herein mentioned, was and still is the owner (lessee) of certain real property situated in the at &*utW Old• State of New York , and described on Respondent Assessor's assessment roll as set forth in Item 1 of Schedule A, which Schedule is annexed hereto and incorporated herein . 2 . At all times herein mentioned , Petitioner was and still is an aggrieved party in respect to the assessment within the meaning of Section 706 , Real Property Tax Law State of New York . 3 . Respondent Board of Assessors and/or Assessor(s) is the duly constituted Board of Assessors and/or Assessor(s) and is authorized to assess real property in said for the purpose of taxation. 4. Respondent Board of Review is the duly constituted Board of Review of the Town of "► id and is authorized to hear and determine complaints in relation to assessments and has all of the powers and duties imposed by law on Boards of Review by Section 512 of the Real Property Tax Law, State of New York. 5. Heretofore, the Board of Assessors and/or the Assessor(s) -2- G-3 prepared and completed a tentative assessment roll of all real property in said Town for the Tax Year set forth in Item 2 of said Schedule A. Thereafter, the Board of Assessors and/or Assessors) filed the assessment roll so that it might be seen and examined by any person from July 1st of this year to and including the third Tuesday in July of this year (hereinafter referred to as Grievance Day) . Respondent Board of Review would meet at a time and place specified in the Notice to hear complaints and grievances as to any assessment appearing on the assessment roll. , 6. Petitioner's said real property was assessed on the tentative assessment roll, as set forth in Item 3 of Schedule A. 7. On or before said Grievance Day, Petitioner protested the said assessment by filing with Respondents a written application for correction of the assessed valuation, in which application was included a statement, under oath, specifying the respects in which said assess- ment was incorrect and a request that said assessment be reviewed , revised , corrected and reduced. The said application and statement is hereby incorporated herein by reference and made a part hereof as if herein fully set forth. 8. The said application and statement was received by Respondents , without objection, within the time fixed by law for the making and hearing of complaints in respect to assessments , and upon information and belief, Respondents considered the application on its -3- G-4 merits. 9 . Upon information and belief, a final decision and determina- tion of the assessment of said real property was duly rendered by Respondents , who failed to correct, revise and reduce said assessment as requested and finally completed and filed the assessment roll as required by law. 10 . Thereafter, the Respondents duly gave the notice required by law by posting and publishing notice of the completion and filing of the assessment roll. 11 . The assessment of Petitioner's real property on the assess- ment roll as finally completed is set forth in Item 4 of Schedule A. 12 . The said assessment of your Petitioner's property on the assessment roll as finally completed is incorrect and erroneous upon the following grounds: (a) Overvaluation to the extent set forth in Item 5 of Schedule A; (b) Inequality to the extent set forth in Item 5 of Schedule A, in that the assessment has been made at a highEr proportionate valuation than the assessment of other real property on the same roll by the same Officers and Respondents; the specified instances of such inequality are the assessments of all of the real property, other than the property of Petitioner, in the assessing jurisdiction and in each and every parcel thereof. In order that the assessment of Petitioner's real property be made proportionate to assessments elsewhere throughout the assessing -4- G-5 jurisdiction, it is necessary that it be reduced to the amount set forth in Item 6 of Schedule A. In accordance with Section 307 of the Real Property Tax Law, Subdivision 3 , as amended , it is hereby further alleged that the assessment has been made at a higher proportionate valuation than the assessment of other taxable real property of the same major type, as determined by the state board of equalization and assessment pursuant to Section 1200 of the Real Property Tax Law, if in fact, such state board of equalization has made such a determination. (c) Illegality to the extent set forth in Item 5 of Schedule A, in that the subject property is being assessed at a higher proportion of market value than all other properties situated in the same assessing jurisdiction, and also reflects a value in excess of the full market value of the subject property. 13 . Your Petitioner is aggrieved and injured by said unjust, unequal , excessive , illegal , incorrect and erroneous assessment in that, by reason thereof, Petitioner will be compelled to pay a greater amount and proportion of taxes based upon the assessment roll than Petitioner would be required to pay if said assessment had been just, fair, equal and correct. 14 . Thirty (30) days have not elapsed since the later of the final completion and filing of the assessment roll and the giving of notice thereof as required by law, or, the final day set by law for the filing of the assessment roll. 15 . No provision is made by law for an appeal or other relief -5- G-6 from the final determination of Respondents , except by a review by petition to the Supreme Court. 16 . If there be more than one Petitioner herein , the word "Petitioner" shall mean "Petitioners" or "each of the Petitioners" , when- ever the sense and context so requires. 17 . The Corporate Petitioner herein is duly organized and existing under the laws of the State of New York. WHEREFORE, Petitioner respectfully prays: (A) That the assessment roll be reviewed and corrected and that the assessment of Petitioner's real property be reduced to the proper amount and be properly equalized with the assessments of other real property on the same roll and that this Court review and correct on the merits the aforementioned final determination and assessment of the Respondents; (B) That this Court take evidence, or cause same to be taken, to enable Petitioner to show the unjust, unequal, excessive, illegal, incorrect and erroneous assessment of Petitioner's real property; and (C) For such other and further relief as to the Court may seem just and proper, together with the costs and disbursements of this proceeding . MATTHEW f. CRONIN Attorney for Petitioner 1539 Franklin 4venue Mineola, New York 11501 Tel: 516-741-8144 -6- • G-7 SCHEDULE A TO PETITION TO REVIEW ASSESSMENT ON REAL PROPERTY Item 1 : Description on Assessment Roll: Town of "OkwW14 Village of S.D . No. Section Block Lot (1j Item #413111 H sat ssZs sOAD X Louisa NILOW 6 Max XD w DIST lim (2� Itr OSI9311 X sat SAILMOAD 2 DIST 9 sus© Item 2: Tax Year: 1978-79 Item 3: Tentative Assessment: Total (11 $ 1140340 (1? 13000 Item 4: Final Assessment: Total (11 $ 540100 (2) 130100 Item 5: Extent of Overvaluation or Inequality: Total (1) $$ W*340 (3) peso Item 6: Amount Assessment Should Be Reduced to: Total (1� $ IL601140 (_) +1,140 -7- e" ` d TO: MATTHEW J. CRONIN, ESQ. 1539 Franklin Avenue Mineola, New York 11501 RE: County: Suffolk Town: Southold Description: Item # 423111 Item # 519 311 (# 368801) V LI RAILROAD N LI RAILROAD E DIST 9 E LOUISE WILSON W HOBSON-WYCHE S MAIN RD. S MAIN RD W DIST LINE YOU ARE HEREBY AUTHORIZED to file complaints and petitions for the reduction of real estate taxes for the above noted property, and to sign the complaints and petitions as agent. DATED: May 17, 1978 Patti For: Suburbia Federal Savings and Loan Association Our file # 29-1 s a G-8 STATE OF NEW YORK) ss. . COUNTY OF NASSAU) MATTHEW J. CRONIN being duly sworn, deposes and says: that deponent is the agent for the Petitioner herein, that deponent has read the foregoing petition and knows the contents thereof; that the same is true to deponent's own knowledge, except as to matters therein stated to be alleged upon information and belief, and that as to those matters , deponent believes it to be true; and that the reason this verification is made by deponent and not by Petitioner is that all the material allegations (except those as to matters of public record) of said petition are within the personal knowledge of deponent. �*a epre'.- d a- Matthew J. Cro fj Sworn to before me this 11th day of September 1978 Notary Public BERNARD F. HORAK NOTARY PUBLIC, State of New York No. 41.4623953 Qualified in Queens County Commission Expires March 30, 1W G-1 SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK COUNTY OF GRLIP' MA ---------------------------------------------x In the Matter of the Application of NOTICE RODOR- ST&LUR JIU XASPURs Index Petitioner, -against- THE BOARD OF ASSESSMENT REVIEW & THE RECEIVED BY MftJJW* car 'tet "M W COc2TTIMflLD • T12 TO N CF SOUTHOL TM or SOUTN"OLD, DA Respondents. DEPT. For Review of a Tax Assessment Under Article 7 of the Real Property Tax Law. �- - ------------------------------------------- SIRS: PLEASE TAKE NOTICE that upon the annexed petition verified the 11th day of g'�, *r 197$ , an application will be made at R�� W1;�, Tait ZY of the Supreme Court of the State of New York , to be held in and for the County of fiuffOlk at the Coiirthowta located at U"Ift 501a1errardt Day Ghar4, fitew York on the lath day of Oetobor , 10 , at the opening of Court on that day for review under Article 7 of the Real Property Tax Law of the assessment upon petitioner's real property described in the petition , and for such other and further relief as to the Court may seem just and proper. DATED: Mineola, New York to ►er Y 1 19f Yours , etc . MATTHEW J. CRONIN Attorney for Petitioner 1539 Franklin Avenue Mineola, New York 11501 Our;it # Tel: 516-741-8144 ,. TO: THE BOARD OF ka iiiW"Oly THS, T%RM u�►&sc'i . ow am ()r 000MMD G-2 PETITION TO THE SUPRE v�I „�c,�OO RT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK COUNTY OF Irv► Petitioner respectfully shows and alleges: I . The above captioned Petitioner whose post office address is c/o MATTHEW J. CRONIN, ESC . , 1539 Franklin Avenue , Mineola, N.Y. , 11501 , at all times herein mentioned, was and still is the owner i +!r!' 1�eshsi+d (lessee) of certain real property situated in the um State of New York , and described on Respondent Assessor's assessment roll as set forth in Item 1 of Schedule A, which Schedule is annexed hereto and incorporated herein . 2. At all times herein mentioned, Petitioner was and still is an aggrieved party in respect to the assessment within the meaning of Section 706, Real Property Tax Law, State of New York . 3 . Respondent Board of Assessors and/or Assessor(s) is the duly constituted Board of Assessors and/or Assessor(s) and is authorized to assess real property in said f10" for the purpose of taxation. 4. Respondent Board of Review is the duly constituted Board of V if iii—kMwL$ Review of the and is authorized to hear and determine complaints in relation to assessments and has all of the powers and duties imposed by law on Boards of Review by Section 512 of the Real Property Tax Law, State of New York. 5. Heretofore, the Board of Assessors and/or the �ssessor(s) -2- G-3 prepared and completed a tentative assessment roll of all real property in said Town for the Tax Year set forth in Item 2 of said Schedule A. Thereafter, the Board of Assessors and/or Assessors) filed the assessment roll so that it might be seen and examined by any person from July lst of this year to and including the third Tuesday in July of this year (hereinafter referred to as Grievance Day) . Respondent Board of Review would meet at a time and place specified in the Notice to hear complaints and grievances as to any assessment appearing on the assessment roll. 6. Petitioner's said real property was assessed on the tentative assessment roll, as set forth in Item 3 of Schedule A. 7. On or before said Grievance Day, Petitioner protested the said assessment by filing with Respondents a written application for correction of the assessed valuation, in which application was included a statement, under oath, specifying the respects in which said assess- ment was incorrect and a request that said assessment be reviewed , revised, corrected and reduced. The said application and statement is hereby incorporated herein by reference and made a part hereof as if herein fully set forth. 8. The said application and statement was received by Respondents , without objection, within the time fixed by law for the making and hearing of complaints in respect to assessments , and upon information and belief, Respondents considered the application on its -3- G-4 merits. 9. Upon information and belief, a final decision and determina- tion of the assessment of said real property was duly rendered by Respondents , who failed to correct, revise and reduce said assessment as requested and finally completed and filed the assessment roll as required by law. 10 . Thereafter, the Respondents duly gave the notice required by law by posting and publishing notice of the completion and filing of the assessment roll. 11 . The assessment of Petitioner's real property on the assess- ment roll as finally completed is set forth in Item 4 of Schedule A. 12 . The said assessment of your Petitioner's property on the assessment roll as finally completed is incorrect and erroneous upon the following grounds: (a) Overvaluation to the extent set forth in Item 5 of Schedule A; (b) Inequality to the extent set forth in Item 5 of Schedule A, in that the assessment has been made at a higher proportionate valuation than the assessment of other real property on the same roll by the same Officers and Respondents; the specified instances of such inequality are the assessments of all of the real property, other than the property of Petitioner, in the assessing jurisdiction and in each and every parcel thereof. In order that the assessment of Petitioner's real property be made proportionate to assessments elsewhere throughout the assessing -4- G-5 jurisdiction, it is necessary that it be reduced to the amount set forth in Item 6 of Schedule A. In accordance with Section 307 of the Real Property Tax Law, Subdivision 3 , as amended , it is hereby further alleged that the assessment has been made at a higher proportionate valuation than the assessment of other taxable real property of the same major type, as determined by the state board of equalization and assessment pursuant to Section 1200 of the Real Property Tax Law, if in fact, such state board of equalization has made such a determination. (c) Illegality to the extent set forth in Item 5 of Schedule A, in that the subject property is being assessed at a higher proportion of market value than all other properties situated in the same assessing jurisdiction, and also reflects a value in excess of the full market value of the subject property. 13 . Your Petitioner is aggrieved and injured by said unjust, unequal , excessive , illegal, incorrect and erroneous assessment in that, by reason thereof, Petitioner will be compelled to pay a greater amount and proportion of taxes based upon the assessment roll than Petitioner would be required to pay if said assessment had been just, fair, equal and correct. 14. Thirty (30) days have not elapsed since the later of the final completion and filing of the assessment roll and the giving of notice thereof as required by law, or, the final day set by law for the filing of the assessment roll. 15 . No provision is made by law for an appeal or other relief -5- G-6 from the final determination of Respondents , except by a review by petition to the Supreme Court. 16 . If there be more than one Petitioner herein, the word "Petitioner" shall mean "Petitioners" or "each of the Petitioners" , when- ever the sense and context so requires. 17 . The Corporate Petitioner herein is duly organized and existing under the laws of the State of New York. WHEREFORE, Petitioner respectfully prays: (A) That the assessment roll be reviewed and corrected and that the assessment of Petitioner's real property be reduced to the proper amount and be properly equalized with the assessments of other real property on the same roll and that this Court review and correct on the merits the aforementioned final determination and assessment of the Respondents; (B) That this Court take evidence, or cause same to be taken, to enable Petitioner to show the unjust, unequal, excessive, illegal , incorrect and erroneous assessment of Petitioner's real property; and (C) For such other and further relief as to the Court may seem Just and proper, together with the costs and disbursements of this proceeding . MATTHEW J. CRONIN Attorney for Petitioner 1539 Franklin Wenue Mineola, New York 11501 Tel: 516-741-8144 -6- . G-7 SCHEDULE A TO PETITION TO REVIEW ASSESSMENT ON REAL PROPERTY Item 1 : Description on Assessment Roll: Town of soutl22apld Village of S.D . No. Section Block Lot Item #339161 aXMMD A AICD MUM iiJXtaw Z SAY AiR Item 2: Tax Year: 1978-79 Item 3: Tentative Assessment: Total $ 6 v 300 Item 4: Final Assessment: Total $ 60300 Item 5: Extent of Overvaluation or Inequality: Total $4Pj1A Item 6: Amount Assessment Should Be Reduced to: Total $ $813 -7- TO: MATTHEW J. CRONIN, ESQ. 1539 Franklin Avenue Mineola, New York 11501 RE: County: Suffolk Town: Southold Description: Item # 339161 YOU ARE HEREBY AUTHORIZED to file complaints and petitions for the reduction of real estate taxes for the above noted property, and to sign the complaints and petitions as agent. DATED: March 20 , 1978 For: Hodor-Staller and Kasper Our file #: 29-4 OL G-8 STATE OF NEW YORK) ss . . COUNTY OF NASSAU) MATTHEW J. CRONIN being duly sworn, deposes and says: that deponent is the agent for the Petitioner herein, that deponent has read the foregoing petition and knows the contents thereof; that the same is true to deponent's own knowledge, except as to matters therein stated to be alleged upon information and belief, and that as to those matters , deponent believes it to be true; and that the reason this verification is made by deponent and not by Petitioner is that all the material allegations (except those as to matters of public record) of said petition are within the personal knowledge of deponent. :a- Matthew J. Cro n Sworn to before me this 11th day of September 1978 Notary Public BERNARD F HORAK NOTARY PUBLIC, State of New York No. 41.4623953 Qualified in Queens County Commission Expires March 30, 1W G-1 SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK COUNTY OF j3UFFOL;: ---------------------------------------------x In the Matter of the Application of NOTICE Index Petitioner, -against- THE BOARD OF ASSESSMENT REVIEW & THErs.DFIT • .; ROf SOUTUROLI) te Ti .c33W OrUt7�1*�UWLD, RespondenFor Review of a Tax Assessment Under Article 7 of the Real Property Tax Law. ---------------------------------------------x SIRS: PLEASE TAKE NOTICE that upon the annexed petition verified the 11t.h day of $*,Member 197 3, an application will be made at spocial Tata• Part IV of the Supreme Court of the State of New York , to be held in and for the County of Suffolk at tIW ConrUIOU046 located at union SouUvurJ, Bay Shore, "Jew York on the 13C%day of Wto'buit , 197 3 at the opening of Court on that day for review under Article 7 of the Real Property Tax Law of the assessment upon petitioner's real property described in the petition, and for such other and further relief as to the Court may seem just and proper. DATED: Mineola, New York �etwr 11 197 3 Yours , etc . MATTHEW J. CRONIN Attorney for Petitioner 1539 Franklin Avenue Mineola, New York 11501 Our file # Tel: 516-741-8144 TO: THE BOARD OF ASSESSMENT REVIEW & HE ASSRS50A OY T= iii 0 !7TM40tj) i r1m TOWN Or SOUTRH4LD G-2 PETITION TO THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK COUNTY OF SUIPIVOLK Petitioner respectfully shows and alleges: 1 . The above captioned Petitioner whose post office address is c/o MATTHEW J. CRONIN, ESQ. , 1539 Franklin Avenue , Mineola, N.Y. , 11501 , at all times herein mentioned, was and still is the owner (lessee) of certain real property situated in the OWU 0f "'4t! 401" State of New York , and described on Respondent Assessor's assessment roll as set forth in Item 1 of Schedule A, which Schedule is annexed hereto and incorporated herein . 2 . At all times herein mentioned , Petitioner was and still is an aggrieved party in respect to the assessment within the meaning of Section 706, Real Property Tax Law, State of New York . 3 . Respondent Board of Assessors and/or Assessor(s) is the duly constituted Board of Assessors and/or Assessor(s) and is authorized to assess real property in said 70'4n for the purpose of taxation. 4. Respondent Board of Review is the duly constituted Board of Review of the Tewn Of SGUttth011i and is authorized to hear and determine complaints in relation to assessments and has all of the powers and duties imposed by law on Boards of Review by Section 512 of the Real Property Tax Law, State of New York. 5. Heretofore, the Board of Assessors and/or the 7�ssessor(s) -2- ` G-3 prepared and completed a tentative assessment roll of all real property in said Town for the Tax Year set forth in Item 2 of said Schedule A. Thereafter, the Board of Assessors and/or Assessor(s) filed the assessment roll so that it might be seen and examined by any person from July lst of this year to and including the third Tuesday in July of this year (hereinafter referred to as Grievance Day) . Respondent Board of Review would meet at a time and place specified in the Notice to hear complaints and grievances as to any assessment appearing on the assessment roll. 6. Petitioner's said real property was assessed on the tentative assessment roll, as set forth in Item 3 of Schedule A. 7 . On or before said Grievance Day, Petitioner protested the said assessment by filing with Respondents a written application for correction of the assessed valuation, in which application was included a statement, under oath, specifying the respects in which said assess- ment was incorrect and a request that said assessment be reviewed , revised, corrected and reduced. The said application and statement is hereby incorporated herein by reference and made a part hereof as if herein fully set forth. 8. The said application and statement was received by Respondents , without objection, within the time fixed by law for the making and hearing of complaints in respect to assessments , and upon information and belief, Respondents considered the application on its -3- i G-4 merits . 9 . Upon information and belief, a final decision and determina- tion of the assessment of said real property was duly rendered by Respondents, who failed to correct, revise and reduce said assessment as requested and finally completed and filed the assessment roll as required by law. 10 . Thereafter, the Respondents duly gave the notice required by law by posting and publishing notice of the completion and filing of the assessment roll. 11 . The assessment of Petitioner's real property on the assess- ment roll as finally completed is set forth in Item 4 of Schedule A. 12 . The said assessment of your Petitioner's property on the assessment roll as finally completed is incorrect and erroneous upon the following grounds: (a) Overvaluation to the extent set forth in Item 5 of Schedule A; (b) Inequality to the extent set forth in Item 5 of Schedule A, in that the assessment has been made at a highs proportionate valuation than the assessment of other real property on the same roll by the same Officers and Respondents; the specified instances of such inequality are the assessments of all of the real property, other than the property of Petitioner, in the assessing jurisdiction and in each and every parcel thereof. In order that the assessment of Petitioner's real property be made proportionate to assessments elsewhere throughout the assessing -4- G-5 jurisdiction, it is necessary that it be reduced to the amount set forth in Item 6 of Schedule A. In accordance with Section 307 of the Real Property Tax Law, Subdivision 3 , as amended , it is hereby further alleged that the assessment has been made at a higher proportionate valuation than the assessment of other taxable real property of the same major type, as determined by the state board of equalization and assessment pursuant to Section 1200 of the Real Property Tax Law, if in fact, such state board of equalization has made such a determination. (c) Illegality to the extent set forth in Item 5 of Schedule A, in that the subject property is being assessed at a higher proportion of market value than all other properties situated in the same assessing jurisdiction, and also reflects a value in excess of the full market value of the subject property. 13 . Your Petitioner is aggrieved and injured by said unjust, unequal , excessive , illegal, incorrect and erroneous assessment in that, by reason thereof, Petitioner will be compelled to pay a greater amount and proportion of taxes based upon the assessment roll than Petitioner would be required to pay if said assessment had been just, fair, equal and correct. 14. Thirty (30) days have not elapsed since the later of the final completion and filing of the assessment roll and the giving of notice thereof as required by law, or, the final day set by law for the filing of the assessment roll. 15 . No provision is made by law for an appeal or other relief -5- G-6 from the final determination of Respondents , except by a review by petition to the Supreme Court. 16 . If there be more than one Petitioner herein, the word "Petitioner" shall mean "Petitioners" or "each of the Petitioners" , when- ever the sense and context so requires. 17 . The Corporate Petitioner herein is duly organized and existing under the laws of the State of New York. WHEREFORE, Petitioner respectfully prays: (A) That the assessment roll be reviewed and corrected and that the assessment of Petitioner's real property be reduced to the proper amount and be properly equalized with the assessments of other real property on the same roll and that this Court review and correct on the merits the aforementioned final determination and assessment of the Respondents; (B) That this Court take evidence , or cause same to be taken, to enable Petitioner to show the unjust, unequal , excessive, illegal , incorrect and erroneous assessment of Petitioner's real property; and (C) For such other and further relief as to the Court may seem just and proper, together with the costs and disbursements of this proceeding . MATTHEW J. CRONIN Attorney for Petitioner 1539 Franklin Avenue Mineola, New York 11501 Tel: 516-741-8144 -6- G-7 SCHEDULE A TO PETITION TO REVIEW ASSESSMENT ON REAL PROPERTY Item 1 : Description on Assessment Roll: Town of iout"Old Village of S.D . No. Section Block Lot Item .�99�11 1044 99 1 1 Item 2: Tax Year: 1978-79 Item 3: Tentative Assessment: Total $ 1.7,400 Item 4: Final Assessment: Total $ 19x400 Item 5: Extent of Overvaluation or Inequality: Tota 00 r1 Item 6: Amount Assessment Should Be Reduced to: Total $ 3r220 -7- TO: MATTHEW J. CRONIN, ESQ. 1S39 Franklin Avenue Mineola, New York 11501 RE: County: Suffolk Town: Description: YOU ARE HEREBY AUTHORIZED to file complaints and petitions for the reduction of real estate taxes for the above noted property, and to sign the complaints and petitions as agent. * Our file #28-15 Item #95371 900 221 03 017 Town of Southampton Our file #29-6 Item #520601 1000 122 7 1 Town of Southold Our file #29-5 Item #299621 1000 99 4 1 Town of Southhold For: Vantage Petroleum Corp. DATE: July 11, 1978 G-8 STATE OF NEW YORK) ss . . COUNTY OF NASSAU) MATTHEW J. CRONIN being duly sworn, deposes and says: that deponent is the agent for the Petitioner herein, that deponent has read the foregoing petition and knows the contents thereof; that the same is true to deponent's own knowledge, except as to matters therein stated to be alleged upon information and belief, and that as to those matters , deponent believes it to be true; and that the reason this verification is made by deponent and not by Petitioner is that all the material allegations (except those as to matters of public record) of said petition are within the personal knowledge of deponent. A ii r=��- d a- Matthew J. Cro n Sworn to before me this 11th day of September 1978 Notary Public BERNARD E HORAK NOTARY PUBLIC, State of New York No. 41.4623953 Qualified in Queens County Commission Expires March 30, 1W G-1 SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK COUNTY OF s ---------------------------------------------x In the Matter of the Application of NOTICE VANOM WIndex #: 70�15330 IP G C � Petitioner, -against- RECEIVED BY TOOF SOT 7HOLD THE BOARD OF ASSESSMENT REVIEW & THE W2W 900' aM�t.�► • _D� cE1� ���hOUR DEPT, � Responden S. For Review of a Tax Assessment Under Article 7 of the Real Property Tax Law. ---------------------------------------------x SIRS: PLEASE TAKE NOTICE that uon the annexed petition verified the 11111 day of , 19J , an application will be made at ip""IL Twoo P"t XV of the Supreme Court of the State of New York , to be held in and for the County of SOU01k at 00 cow II 01 wr" located a 1h.0— • "y fte"o frw YWk on the13k day of , 1970 at the opening of Court on that day for review under Article 7 of the Real Property Tax Law of the assessment upon petitioner's real property described in the petition , and for such other and further relief as to the Court may seem just and proper. DATED: Mineola, New York septe=Ww 11 19f Yours , etc . MATTHEW J. CRONIN Attorney for Petitioner 1539 Franklin Avenue Mineola, New York 11501 Oi.file # Tel: 516-741-8144 TO: THE BOARD0 LT TJM Tom 00' so a ls11a{Gt� t i G-2 PETITION TO THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK COUNTY OF SUV'/'= Petitioner respectfully shows and alleges: 1 . The above captioned Petitioner whose post office address is c/o MATTHEW J. CRONIN, ESQ. , 1539 Franklin Avenue , Mineola, N.Y. , 11501 , at all times herein mentioned, was and still is the owner (lessee) of certain real property situated in the Towa ®f 0h03A State of New York , and described on Respondent Assessor's assessment roll as set forth in Item 1 of Schedule A, which Schedule is annexed hereto and incorporated herein . 2 . At all times herein mentioned , Petitioner was and still is an aggrieved party in respect to the assessment within the meaning of Section 706 , Real Property Tax Law, State of New York . 3 . Respondent Board of Assessors and/or Assessor(s) is the duly constituted Board of Assessors and/or Assessor(s) and is authorized to assess real property in said '*"* for the purpose of taxation. 4. Respondent Board of Review is the duly constituted Board of Review of the V of NowkwWld and is authorized to hear and determine complaints in relation to assessments and has all of the powers and duties imposed by law on Boards of Review by Section 512 of the Real Property Tax Law, State of New York . 5 . Heretofore, the Board of Assessors and/or the Assessor(s) -2- G-3 t prepared and completed a tentative assessment roll of all real property in said Town for the Tax Year set forth in Item 2 of said Schedule A. Thereafter, the Board of Assessors and/or Assessor(s) filed the assessment roll so that it might be seen and examined by any person from July 1st of this year to and including the third Tuesday in July of this year (hereinafter referred to as Grievance Day) . Respondent Board of Review would meet at a time and place specified in the Notice to hear complaints and grievances as to any assessment appearing on the assessment roll. 6. Petitioner's said real property was assessed on the tentative assessment roll, as set forth in Item 3 of Schedule A. 7. On or before said Grievance Day, Petitioner protested the said assessment by filing with Respondents a written application for correction of the assessed valuation, in which application was included a statement, under oath, specifying the respects in which said assess- ment was incorrect and a request that said assessment be reviewed , revised , corrected and reduced. The said application and statement is hereby incorporated herein by reference and made a part hereof as if herein fully set forth. 8. The said application and statement was received by Respondents , without objection, within the time fixed by law for the making and hearing of complaints in respect to assessments , and upon information and belief, Respondents considered the application on its -3- G-4 merits. 9. Upon information and belief, a final decision and determina- tion of the assessment of said real property was duly rendered by Respondents , who failed to correct, revise and reduce said assessment as requested and finally completed and filed the assessment roll as required by law. 10 . Thereafter, the Respondents duly gave the notice required by law by posting and publishing notice of the completion and filing of the assessment roll. 11 . The assessment of Petitioner's real property on the assess- ment roll as finally completed is set forth in Item 4 of Schedule A. 12 . The said assessment of your Petitioner's property on the assessment roll as finally completed is incorrect and erroneous upon the following grounds: (a) Overvaluation to the extent set forth in Item 5 of Schedule A; (b) Inequality to the extent set forth in Item 5 of Schedule A, in that the assessment has been made at a highEr proportionate valuation than the assessment of other real property on the same roll by the same Officers and Respondents; the specified instances of such inequality are the assessments of all of the real property, other than the property of Petitioner, in the assessing jurisdiction and in each and every parcel thereof. In order that the assessment of Petitioner's real property be made proportionate to assessments elsewhere throughout the assessing -4- • G-5 jurisdiction, it is necessary that it be reduced to the amount set forth in Item 6 of Schedule A. In accordance with Section 307 of the Real Property Tax Law, Subdivision 3 , as amended , it is hereby further alleged that the assessment has been made at a higher proportionate valuation than the assessment of other taxable real property of the same major type, as determined by the state board of equalization and assessment pursuant to Section 1200 of the Real Property Tax Law, if in fact, such state board of equalization has made such a determination. (c) Illegality to the extent set forth in Item 5 of Schedule A, in that the subject property is being assessed at a higher proportion of market value than all other properties situated in the same assessing jurisdiction, and also reflects a value in excess of the full market value of the subject property. 13 . Your Petitioner is aggrieved and injured by said unjust, unequal , excessive, illegal, incorrect and erroneous assessment in that, by reason thereof, Petitioner will be compelled to pay a greater amount and proportion of taxes based upon the assessment roll than Petitioner would be required to pay if said assessment had been just, fair, equal and correct. 14. Thirty (30) days have not elapsed since the later of the final completion and filing of the assessment roll and the giving of notice thereof as required by law, or, the final day set by law for the filing of the assessment roll. 15 . No provision is made by law for an appeal or other relief -5- G-6 from the final determination of Respondents , except by a review by petition to the Supreme Court. 16. If there be more than one Petitioner herein, the word "Petitioner" shall mean "Petitioners" or "each of the Petitioners" , when- ever the sense and context so requires. 17 . The Corporate Petitioner herein is duly organized and existing under the laws of the State of New York. WHEREFORE, Petitioner respectfully prays: (A) That the assessment roll be reviewed and corrected and that the assessment of Petitioner's real property be reduced to the proper amoun and be properly equalized with the assessments of other real property on the same roll and that this Court review and correct on the merits the aforementioned final determination and assessment of the Respondents; (B) That this Court take evidence, or cause same to be taken , to enable Petitioner to show the unjust, unequal , excessive, illegal , incorrect and erroneous assessment of Petitioner's real property; and (C) For such other and further relief as to the Court may seem just and proper, together with the costs and disbursements of this proceeding . MATTHEW J. CRONIN Attorney for Petitioner 1539 Franklin 4venue Mineola, New York 11501 Tel: 516-741-8144 -6- G-7 SCHEDULE A TO PETITION TO REVIEW ASSESSMENT ON REAL PROPERTY Item l : Description on. eusment Roll: Town of �� ,,UU�� Village of S.D . No. Section Block Lot zt� s20�o1 1000 122 7 1 Item 2: Tax Year: 1978-79 Item 3: Tentative Assessment: Total $ i,;00 Item 4: Final Assessment: Total $ $0!00 Item 5: Extent of Overvaluation or Inequality: Total.0© T-wil Item 6: Amount Assessment Should Be Reduced to: Total $ lel2t! -7- TO: MATTHEW J. CRONIN, ESQ. 1539 Franklin Avenue Mineola, New York 11501 RE: County: Suffolk Town: Description: YOU ARE HEREBY AUTHORIZED to file complaints and petitions for the reduction of real estate taxes for the above noted property, and to sign the complaints and petitions as agent. * Our file #28-15 Item #95371 900 221 03 017 Town of Southampton Our file #29-6 Item #520601 1000 122 7 1 Town of Southold Our file #29-5 Item #299621 1000 99 4 1 � Town of SouthholdJ1 For: Vantage Petroleum Corp. DATE: July_ 11, 1978 G-8 STATE OF NEW YORK) ss. . COUNTY OF NASSAU) MATTHEW J. CRONIN being duly sworn, deposes and says: that deponent is the agent for the Petitioner herein, that deponent has read the foregoing petition and knows the contents thereof; that the same is true to deponent's own knowledge, except as to matters therein stated to be alleged upon information and belief, and that as to those matters , deponent believes it to be true; and that the reason this verification is made by deponent and not by Petitioner is that all the material allegations (except those as to matters of public record) of said petition are within the personal knowledge of deponent. A et.�- d a- Matthew J. Cro n Sworn to before me this 11th day of September 1978 Notary Public BERNARD E HORAK NOTARY PUBLIC, State of New York No. 41.4623953 Qualified in Queens County Commission Expires March 30. 190 G-1 SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK COUNTY OF Bg"t,Z,YA ---------------------------------------------x In the Matter of the Application of NOTICE CUTCUOQUX Jow V=%vue Index #:78«154!6 Petitioner, -against- THE BOARD OF ASSESSMENT REVIEW & THE PECEIVEU BY "ANSSOx or THS TOM or sourtmow & Vils i T"' ,q OF SOliTHC:'!D TOWN OF 800"Mwf97�HOUfi - 1/: s Respondents _Gk.';' - For Review of a Tax Assessment Under Article 7 of the Real Property Tax Law. ---------------------------------------------x SIRS: PLEASE TAKE NOTICE that upon the annexed petition verified the 11l:A day of *QVt4WbW 19f an application will be made at Sp"ul T"V PAUM IV of the Supreme Court of the State of New York , to be held in and for the County of B1il1'elu at the C---tb~s located atUaLO31 DOUILOVO dt Barr b*hOJMv 110V TQC3t# on the 1301 day of t3ot4*31" , 1978 , at the opening of Court on that day for review under Article 7 of the Real Property Tax Law of the assessment upon petitioner's real property described in the petition , and for such other and further relief as to the Court may seem just and proper. DATED: Mineola, New York Sapuaber 11 1976 Yours , etc . MATTHEW J. CRONIN Attorney for Petitioner 1539 Franklin Avenue Mineola, New York 11501 Our file # Tel: 516-741-8144 TO: THE BOARD OFAJJ J"E� ! us TOW W �� • spa Im air s G-2 PETITION TO THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK COUNTY OF $V Petitioner respectfully shows and alleges: 1 . The above captioned Petitioner whose post office address is C/o MATTHEW J. CRONIN, ESQ. , 1539 Franklin Avenue, Mineola, N.Y. , 11501 , at all times herein mentioned, was and still is the owner (lessee) of certain real property situated in the TOM Of X*Ulbhold State of New York , and described on Respondent Assessor's assessment roll as set forth in Item 1 of Schedule A, which Schedule is annexed hereto and incorporated herein . 2 . At all times herein mentioned, Petitioner was and still is an aggrieved party in respect to the assessment within the meaning of Section 706, Real Property Tax Law, State of New York . 3 . Respondent Board of Assessors and/or Assessor(s) is the duly constituted Board of Assessors and/or Assessor(s) and is authorized to assess real property in said SOM for the purpose of taxation. 4. Respondent Board of Review is the duly constituted Board of Review of the TO" Of `ld and is authorized to hear and determine complaints in relation to assessments and has all of the powers and duties imposed by law on Boards of Review by Section 512 of the Real Property Tax Law, State of New York. 5 . Heretofore, the Board of Assessors and/or the 7Assessor(s) -2- G-3 prepared and completed a tentative assessment roll of all real property in said Town for the Tax Year set forth in Item 2 of said Schedule A. Thereafter, the Board of Assessors and/or Assessor(s) filed the assessment roll so that it might be seen and examined by any person from July lst of this year to and including the third Tuesday in July of this year (hereinafter referred to as Grievance Day) . Respondent Board of Review would meet at a time and place specified in the Notice to hear complaints and grievances as to any assessment appearing on the assessment roll. 6. Petitioner's said real property was assessed on the tentative assessment roll, as set forth in Item 3 of Schedule A. 7. On or before said Grievance Day, Petitioner protested the said assessment by filing with Respondents a written application for correction of the assessed valuation, in which application was included a statement, under oath, specifying the respects in which said assess- ment was incorrect and a request that said assessment be reviewed , revised, corrected and reduced. The said application and statement is hereby incorporated herein by reference and made a part hereof as if herein fully set forth. 8. The said application and statement was received by Respondents , without objection, within the time fixed by law for the making and hearing of complaints in respect to assessments , and upon information and belief, Respondents considered the application on its -3- G-4 merits . 9. Upon information and belief, a final decision and determina- tion of the assessment of said real property was duly rendered by Respondents , who failed to correct, revise and reduce said assessment as requested and finally completed and filed the assessment roll as required by law. 10 . Thereafter, the Respondents duly gave the notice required by law by posting and publishing notice of the completion and filing of the assessment roll. 11 . The assessment of Petitioner's real property on the assess- ment roll as finally completed is set forth in Item 4 of Schedule A. 12 . The said assessment of your Petitioner's property on the assessment roll as finally completed is incorrect and erroneous upon the following grounds: (a) Overvaluation to the extent set forth in Item 5 of Schedule A; (b) Inequality to the extent set forth in Item 5 of Schedule A, in that the assessment has been made at a higher proportionate valuation than the assessment of other real property on the same roll by the same Officers and Respondents; the specified instances of such inequality are the assessments of all of the real property, other than the property of Petitioner, in the assessing jurisdiction and in each and every parcel thereof. In order that the assessment of Petitioner's real property be made proportionate to assessments elsewhere throughout the assessing -4- G-5 jurisdiction, it is necessary that it be reduced to the amount set forth in Item 6 of Schedule A. In accordance with Section 307 of the Real Property Tax Law, Subdivision 3 , as amended , it is hereby further alleged that the assessment has been made at a higher proportionate valuation than the assessment of other taxable real property of the same major type, as determined by the state board of equalization and assessment pursuant to Section 1200 of the Real Property Tax Law, if in fact, such state board of equalization has made such a determination. (c) Illegality to the extent set forth in Item 5 of Schedule A, in that the subject property is being assessed at a higher proportion of market value than all other properties situated in the same assessing jurisdiction, and also reflects a value in excess of the full market value of the subject property. 13 . Your Petitioner is aggrieved and injured by said unjust, unequal , excessive , illegal, incorrect and erroneous assessment in that, by reason thereof, Petitioner will be compelled to pay a greater amount and proportion of taxes based upon the assessment roll than Petitioner would be required to pay if said assessment had been just, fair, equal and correct. 14. Thirty (30) days have not elapsed since the later of the final completion and filing of the assessment roll and the giving of notice thereof as required by law, or, the final day set by law for the filing of the assessment roll. 15 . No provision is made by law for an appeal or other relief -5- G-6 from the final determination of Respondents , except by a review by petition to the Supreme Court. 16 . If there be more than one Petitioner herein , the word "Petitioner" shall mean "Petitioners" or "each of the Petitioners" , when- ever the sense and context so requires. 17 . The Corporate Petitioner herein is duly organized and existing under the laws of the State of New York. WHEREFORE, Petitioner respectfully prays: (A) That the assessment roll be reviewed and corrected and that the assessment of Petitioner's real property be reduced to the proper amount and be properly equalized with the assessments of other real property on the same roll and that this Court review and correct on the merits the aforementioned final determination and assessment of the Respondents; (B) That this Court take evidence, or cause same to be taken, to enable Petitioner to show the unjust, unequal , excessive, illegal , incorrect and erroneous assessment of Petitioner's real property; and (C) For such other and further relief as to the Court may seem just and proper, together with the costs and disbursements of this proceeding . MATTHEW J. CRONIN Attorney for Petitioner 1539 Franklin Avenue Mineola, New York 11501 Tel: 516-741-8144 -6- G-7 SCHEDULE A TO PETITION TO REVIEW ASSESSMENT ON REAL PROPERTY Item 1 : Description on Assessment Roll: Town of "Uthlk*14 Village of S.D . No. Section Block Lot Itm 4307722 M XMLZ m a X&ILROM A SAIM2 Lh-AWD W C19XIAMM-OLO R Item 2: Tax Year: 1978-79 Item 3: Tentative Assessment: Total $ WOO Item 4: Final Assessment: Total $ 8,700 Item 5: Extent of Overvaluation or Inequality: Total $ 60090 Item 6: Amount Assessment Should Be Reduced to: Total $ 2*610 -7- 1 r i TO: MATTHEW J. CRONIN, ESQ. 1539 Franklin Avenue Mineola, New York 11501 RE: County: Suffolk Town: Southold Description: Item # 307722 s i YOU ARE HEREBY AUTHORIZED to file complaints and I petitions for the reduction of real estate taxes for the above i noted property, and to sign the complaints and petitions as agent. DATED: June 5, 1978 For: Cutchogue joint Venture, S.t_„_ T . S Our file #: 29-2 a G-8 STATE OF NEW YORK) ss. : COUNTY OF NASSAU) MATTHEW J. CRONIN being duly sworn, deposes and says: that deponent is the agent for the Petitioner herein, that deponent has read the foregoing petition and knows the contents thereof; that the same is true to deponent's own knowledge, except as to matters therein stated to be alleged upon information and belief, and that as to those matters , deponent believes it to be true; and that the reason this verification is made by deponent and not by Petitioner is that all the material allegations (except those as to matters of public record) of said petition are within the personal knowledge of deponent. A e=.-��- Matthew J. Cro n Sworn to before me this 11th day of September 1978 Notary Public BERNARD F_ HORAK NOTARY PUBLIC, State of New York No. 41.4623953 Qualified in Queens County Commission Expires March 30, 10$O + ��,...�• G-1 SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK COUNTY OF BU "F= ---------------------------------------------x fn the Matter of the Application of NOTICE s a H `TY `"O'• Index #: 7�t•1�►�►11 Petitioner, -against- THE BOARD OF ASSESSMENT REVIEW & THE RECEIVED BY �SONS 0lz or ITvw11 OP 19OUTxHOW a irlm TO N OF O�JTHOLD Tow tw scxa�r�s OLD, DATE T/ ?;;1 HOUR //.- s Respondents. DEPT. For Review of a Tax Assessment Under Article 7 of the Real Property Tax Law. ---------------------------------------------x SIRS: PLEASE TAKE NOTICE that upon the annexed petition verified the 11th day of S*Ptember 1971 , an application will be made at Special T"m# Fan XV of the Supreme Court of the State of New York , to be held in and for the -_Co��}}nty o smttolk at the C.owtuvne located at"iwde fl�►wl�e'mkp flay Sh am# flew Per=k on the 13th day of OctAbert , 197 1 , at the opening of Court on that day for review under Article 7 of the Real Property Tax Law of the assessment upon petitioner's real property described in the petition , and for such other and further relief as to the Court may seem just and proper. DATED: Mineola, New York "Pteea bor 11* 1971 Yours , etc . MATTHEW J. CRONIN Attorney for Petitioner 1539 Franklin Avenue Mineola, New York 11501 Our file # Tel: 516-741-8144 2 +) TO: --]] �T�THE BOARD OF A S SSMENT 'fir or sou"HOLD G-2 PETITION TO THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK COUNTY OF SUVVOLX Petitioner respectfully shows and alleges: 1 . The above captioned Petitioner whose post office address is c/o MATTHEW J. CRONIN, ESQ. , 1539 Franklin Avenue, Mineola, N.Y. , 11501 , at all times herein mentioned, was and still is the owner (lessee) of certain real property situated in the TOWD Hf SOUthhola State of New York , and described on Respondent Assessor's assessment roll as set forth in Item 1 of Schedule A. which Schedule is annexed hereto and incorporated herein . 2 . At all times herein mentioned , Petitioner was and still is an aggrieved party in respect to the assessment within the meaning of Section 706, Real Property Tax Law, State of New York . 3 . Respondent Board of Assessors and/or Assessor(s) is the duly constituted Board of Assessors and/or Assessor(s) and is authorized to assess real property in said TOWR for the purpose of taxation. 4. Respondent Board of Review is the duly constituted Board of Review of the T of SOut-W"WId and is authorized to hear and determine complaints in relation to assessments and has all of the powers and duties imposed by law on Boards of Review by Section 512 of the Real Property Tax Law, State of New York. 5 . Heretofore, the Board of Assessors and/or the )ssessor(s) -2- G-3 i prepared and completed a tentative assessment roll of all real property in said Town for the Tax Year set forth in Item 2 of said Schedule A. Thereafter, the Board of Assessors and/or Assessor(s) filed the assessment roll so that it might be seen and examined by any person from July 1st of this year to and including the third Tuesday in July of this year (hereinafter referred to as Grievance Day) . Respondent Board of Review would meet at a time and place specified in the Notice to hear complaints and grievances as to any assessment appearing on the assessment roll. 6. Petitioner's said real property was assessed on the tentative assessment roll, as set forth in Item 3 of Schedule A. 7. On or before said Grievance Day, Petitioner protested the said assessment by filing with Respondents a written application for correction of the assessed valuation, in which application was included a statement, under oath, specifying the respects in which said assess- ment was incorrect and a request that said assessment be reviewed , revised , corrected and reduced. The said application and statement is hereby incorporated herein by reference and made a part hereof as if herein fully set forth. 8. The said application and statement was received by Respondents , without objection, within the time fixed by law for the making and hearing of complaints in respect to assessments , and upon information and belief, Respondents considered the application on its -3- + G-4 merits . 9. Upon information and belief, a final decision and determina- tion of the assessment of said real property was duly rendered by Respondents, who failed to correct, revise and reduce said assessment as requested and finally completed and filed the assessment roll as required by law. 10 . Thereafter, the Respondents duly gave the notice required by law by posting and publishing notice of the completion and filing of the assessment roll. 11 . The assessment of Petitioner's real property on the assess- ment roll as finally completed is set forth in Item 4 of Schedule A. 12 . The said assessment of your Petitioner's property on the assessment roll as finally completed is incorrect and erroneous upon the following grounds: (a) Overvaluation to the extent set forth in Item 5 of Schedule A; (b) Inequality to the extent set forth in Item 5 of Schedule A, in that the assessment has been made at a highEr proportionate valuation than the assessment of other real property on the same roll by the same Officers and Respondents; the specified instances of such inequality are the assessments of all of the real property, other than the property of Petitioner, in the assessing jurisdiction and in each and every parcel thereof. In order that the assessment of Petitioner's real property be made proportionate to assessments elsewhere throughout the assessing -4- G-5 jurisdiction, it is necessary that it be reduced to the amount set forth in Item 6 of Schedule A. In accordance with Section 307 of the Real Property Tax Law , Subdivision 3 , as amended , it is hereby further alleged that the assessment has been made at a higher proportionate valuation than the assessment of other taxable real property of the same major type, as determined by the state board of equalization and assessment pursuant to Section 1200 of the Real Property Tax Law, if in fact, such state board of equalization has made such a determination. (c) Illegality to the extent set forth in Item 5 of Schedule A, in that the subject property is being assessed at a higher proportion of market value than all other properties situated in the same assessing jurisdiction, and also reflects a value in excess of the full market value of the subject property. 13 . Your Petitioner is aggrieved and injured by said unjust, unequal , excessive, illegal, incorrect and erroneous assessment in that, by reason thereof, Petitioner will be compelled to pay a greater amount and proportion of taxes based upon the assessment roll than Petitioner would be required to pay if said assessment had been just, fair, equal and correct. 14. Thirty (30) days have not elapsed since the later of the final completion and filing of the assessment roll and the giving of notice thereof as required by law, or, the final day set by law for the filing of the assessment roll. 15 . No provision is made by law for an appeal or other relief -5- G-6 from the final determination of Respondents , except by a review by petition to the Supreme Court. 16 . If there be more than one Petitioner herein , the word "Petitioner" shall mean "Petitioners" or "each of the Petitioners" , when- ever the sense and context so requires. 17 . The Corporate Petitioner herein is duly organized and existing under the laws of the State of New York. WHEREFORE, Petitioner respectfully prays: (A) That the assessment roll be reviewed and corrected and that the assessment of Petitioner's real property be reduced to the proper amount and be properly equalized with the assessments of other real property on the same roll and that this Court review and correct on the merits the aforementioned final determination and assessment of the Respondents; (B) That this Court take evidence , or cause same to be taken, to enable Petitioner to show the unjust, unequal , excessive, illegal , incorrect and erroneous assessment of Petitioner's real property; and (C) For such other and further relief as to the Court may seem just and proper, together with the costs and disbursements of this proceeding . MATTHEW J. CRONIN Attorney for Petitioner 1539 Franklin Avenue Mineola, New York 11501 Tel: 516-741-8144 -6- G-7 SCHEDULE A TO PETITION TO REVIEW ASSESSMENT ON REAL PROPERTY Item l : Description on Assessment Roll: Town of gQ%jtj hOjd Village of S.D . No. Section Block Lot Item 0406601 COU"T MAV 014997-5-13 Item 2: Tax Year: 1978-79 Item 3: Tentative Assessment: Total $ 1280X300 Item 4: Final Assessment: Total lei�300 Item 5: Extent of Overvaluation or Inequality: Total $ 0604JLO Item 6: Amount Assessment Should Be Reduced to: Total_ $ 410460 -7- t, TO: MATTHEW J. CRONIN, ESQ. 1539 Franklin Avenue Mineola, New York 11501 RE: County: Suffolk Town: Southold Description: Item ' 406601 YOU ARE HEREBY AUTHORIZED to file complaints and petitions for the reduction of real estate taxes for the above noted property, and to sign the complaints and petitions as agent. DATED: jute 5, 1-18 For: S. E. Realty Co. Our file #: 23-3 G-8 STATE OF NEW YORK) ss . . COUNTY OF NASSAU) MATTHEW J. CRONIN being duly sworn, deposes and says: that deponent is the agent for the Petitioner herein, that deponent has read the foregoing petition and knows the contents thereof; that the same is true to deponent's own knowledge, except as to matters therein stated to be alleged upon information and belief, and that as to those matters , deponent believes it to be true; and that the reason this verification is made by deponent and not by Petitioner is that all the material allegations (except those as to matters of public record) of said petition are within the personal knowledge of deponent. A ez�- d a- Matthew J. Cro n Sworn to before me this 11th day of September 1978 Notary Public GERNARD E HORAK NOTARY PUBLIC, State of New York No. 41.4623953 Qualified In Queens County Commission Expires March 30, 1W