Judge throws out challenge to legality of reassessment phase-in

A state court judge today dismissed a Massapequa homeowner's lawsuit that alleged Nassau County Executive Laura Curran's five-year phase-in for her countywide 2018 reassessment violated his constitutional rights to equal protection because it values new houses more than existing homes.

Nassau Supreme Court Justice James McCormack acknowledged in his 22-page decision that, because of the phase-in, Massapequa homeowner Sean McCarthy would pay  $11,400 more in property taxes than his neighbor with a nearly identical but somewhat larger house built at the same time as McCarthy's home.

The phase-in, approved by the county legislature this spring, calls for assessment increases and decreases resulting from the reassessment to be gradually implemented over five years. But the phase-in does not apply to assessment increases "due to a physical improvement or a removal or reduction of an exemption on the property."

McCormack noted that the neighbor's building permits were filed in 2017 while McCathy's permits were submitted in 2018. Thus, under the county's two-year "look-back" rule, McCarthy's house was considered new construction and his neighbor's wasn't, he wrote.

The different tax burdens "may not seem fair, and the court agrees it is not, but that does not make it unconstitutional. The line had to be drawn somewhere and no one complains that a two- year look back is unreasonable," McCormack wrote.

McCarthy argues that by excluding new construction from the phase in, his property is being taxed at a rate of up to 60 percent higher than fair market value.

But McCormack agreed with the county that a state constitution requirement "that those similarly situated be treated uniformly" is not identical to being treated the same.

McCormack notes that Rochester treated residential properties differently than commercial properties, which were then assessed differently by different assessing units depending upon their geographic location. He did not point out that the example is not particularly applicable to Nassau, which is one of only two countywide assessment units in New York state:  tiny Tompkins County is the other.

The county cited a lawsuit that unsuccessfully challenged the state law that set up four classes of property in the city and Nassau: residential, large multi-family buildings,  utility and commercial,  while the state legislature limited assessment increases only on residential properties.

The so-called 6/20 law was adopted years ago. It caps assessment increases to six percent a year or  20 percent over five years. 

Ironically, the law was intended to prevent sudden dramatic tax increases for homeowners-- much like the sudden dramatic tax increase that McCarthy is facing.

Although the plaintiffs in that case complained that their properties were being treated differently, McCormack noted that the caps "further a legitimate state purpose."

"Relying on these precedents, the county argues that the Phase-In Act cannot be found unconstitutional. The court is constrained to agree." McCormack wrote.

He noted that McCarthy isn't challenging the STAR or veterans exemptions.

"This court cannot reconcile or justify allowing the STAR exemption to remain legal as an exemption, but reject that Phase-in Act because it is only an 'exemption' name."

Of course the difference  is those exemptions reduce a homeowner's taxes while the phase-in exemption increases taxes on new construction.

"The court finds no evidence of a constitutional violation of any section of the federal or New York state constitutions," McCormack wrote.

McCarthy, a lawyer who is representing himself, said, " I disagree with the Judge’s opinion and the rationales underlying it.  I’ll take an immediate appeal to the Appellate Division, and move as expeditiously as possible."

In response to an email questioning whether the judge was comparing apples to oranges, McCarthy replied, "Yes. I believe he put the burden on me to show that other types of exemptions are not rationally related to a legitimate government purpose (eg, veterans, star, disability, senior, etc.) instead of deciding the merits of the exemption at hand." 

McCormack was elected to the state supreme court in 2015 after being cross endorsed by the Democratic and Republican parties. He ran unsuccessfully for supreme court in 2009, running on the Democratic, Independence and Working Families ballot lines, according to Ballotpedia.org.