Notable Firm Cases and Decisions.
United Parcel Service v. New Hartford, NY, Index Nos 2010-001866, 11-1608, CA2012-1385; CA2013-1444; CA2014-001574; (New York Supreme Court 2016)
Successful trial court decision reducing the 2010-2016 tax assessment for a UPS distribution facility in New Hartford, Oneida County, New York resulting in approximately $60,000 in refunds an tax savings. Among the issues decided, after cross-examination, the court rejected the town’s appraisals comparable sales and rentals as not being reflective of the recessionary values occurring during the valuation dates.
Barnes & Noble v. Evesham, NJ, Docket No. 8487-2011, 4346-2012, 20151-2013 (New Jersey Tax Court 2016)
Successful trial court decision reducing the 2011-2015 tax assessment for a 23,657 Sq. Ft. Barnes & Noble in Evesham, New Jersey resulting in an approximate 50% reduction in the assessment and over $230,000 in tax refunds and savings. Among the issues decided, the court rejected the town’s sales comparison approach where under cross-examination respondent appraiser admitted not have the facts as to underlying leases of the leased fee sales relied on.
Costco Wholesale v. Monroe, NJ, Docket Nos 4067-2009, 3574-2010, 8131-2011, 5423-2012 (Tax Court of New Jersey 2014)
Successful trial court decision ruling on the taxation of refrigeration equipment at a 1,000,000 Sq. Ft. Costco distribution/refrigerated warehouse facility. Among the issues decided, the court accepted taxpayers motion to exclude from taxation approximately $6,000,000 in refrigeration support infrastructure at the refrigerated warehouse from assessment as non-taxable “business equipment” under New Jerseys “Business Retention Act”.
Pepsi Cola v. Howell, MI; MTT Doc No. 366835 (Michigan Tax Tribunal 2012)
Successful trial court decision reducing the 2008-2012 tax assessment for a 265,000 Sq. Ft. Pepsi Bottling facility in Howell, MI resulting in over $100,000 of tax refunds and savings. Among the issues decided, the court rejected the town’s reliance on the cost approach for an older facility where under cross-examination respondent appraiser admitted to inconsistencies in its use for an older facility like the subject.
JP Morgan Chase Bank v. Franklin Township, NJ, Doc. No. 4537-2007 (Tax Court of New Jersey, May 8, 2009)
Successful trial court decision denying a municipality’s sought increase of the 2007 assessment on a 50,000 Sq. Ft. Chase Bank office building from $4,300,000 to $7,830,000 which would have resulted in a 2007 tax increase of approximately $66,000. Among the issues decided, the court rejected the town appraiser’s comparable lease data where upon cross-examination the town appraiser admitted that, rather than conducting his own lease research, he relied solely on information given to him by the town tax assessor, and additionally failed to make proper adjustments to the purported comparables for size and other factors.
United Parcel Service v. Town of Colonie, NY 42 A.D.3d 835, 840 N.Y.S.2d 222 (3rd Dept 2007)
Appellate decision upholding a successful Janata, LaCap & Hazen, LLP trial decision ordering assessment reductions and tax refunds, plus interest, on a 160,000 Sq. Ft. industrial building in Albany County, New York for United Parcel Service. Among the issues involved the Appellate court upheld the striking of the town’s appraisal based on Janata, LaCap & Hazen, LLP demonstration that the town’s appraisal failed to properly identify its comparables and the market area. The Appellate court also rejected towns assertion that the property was to be valued as an “overnight transshipment” facility rather than general industrial building.
National Gypsum v. Tonawanda, 4 N.Y.3d 680, 830 N.E.2d 1137, 797 N.Y.S2d 809 (2005)
A Janata, LaCap & Hazen, LLP decision from the highest court in New York confirming as proper procedure the New York Real Property Tax Certiorari Bar’s procedural practice of giving notice dates on tax appeal petitions in conformance with statutory mandates even though the notice date is later changed by the court.