DECISION AND ORDER On September 15, 2020, the Plaintiff commenced the instant Commercial Claims action seeking payment for services rendered in connection with a successful correction of residential property tax assessment (“tax grievance”) for the 2015/2016 tax assessment roll. On January 31, 2022, an evidentiary trial was conducted before the Court, and the parties requested that each be permitted to submit Post-Trial Memoranda of Law regarding the purported liability of the Defendant as he was no longer a record owner of the subject property at the time that the reduced assessment was granted and applied. The Plaintiff is represented by Stern & Stern, P.C., and the Defendant is represented by his own law firm, Richard C. & Associates, P.C. The Court has considered both the post-trial Memorandum of Law of the Defendant, dated February 4, 2022, and the post-trial Memorandum of Law of the Plaintiff, dated February 18, 2022, together with the evidence presented and testimony adduced at the trial. After due deliberation, the Court renders its Decision and Order as follows: In accordance with generally accepted industry practice, the Plaintiff secured separate written authorizations from the Defendant to challenge the assessed value of his residence covering tax years 2014/2015 and 2015/2016, respectively. Each contract contains, inter alia, a description of services to be provided for the specified tax year, and the calculation of fees for assessment corrections following either administrative review or hearing. The Plaintiff assigned separate internal file numbers for the two (2) matters, and appeal identification numbers were generated for each such tax grievance by the Nassau County Assessment Review Commission (“ARC”) as part of the first level administrative review. With regard to the instant claim, the Defendant executed a written authorization in September, 2013 directing the Plaintiff to apply for a correction of the assessed value of his residence located at (redacted address), for the 2015/2016 assessment roll. The terms and conditions of such contract state in part that “[t]his agreement may be terminated without harm or obligation prior to initial filing with ARC (or successor). Sale of home does not void contract. However, contract can be transferred in writing to buyer (emphasis added).” The Plaintiff timely filed a correction application on behalf of the Defendant for the 2015/2016 tax year between the permitted window of January 1, 2014 and March 1, 2014. On October 30, 2014, the Plaintiff notified the Defendant in writing that it intended to accept the offer of the Nassau County ARC to reduce the property taxes for the 2015/2016 tax year. The determination of final assessment by Nassau County ARC, dated May 8, 2015, memorialized the successful reduction of the assessed value for both the 2015/2016 School Tax bill and 2016 General Tax bill. On June 4, 2014 and following the submission of the correction application for the 2015/2016 tax year (but prior to the offer and determination as described hereinabove), the Defendant transferred his ownership interest in the subject real property to his spouse. On October 2, 2014, the spouse then transferred ownership to third-party purchasers, Joseph A. and Aliza A., as Tenants-by-the-Entirety. Simultaneously therewith, Joseph A. executed a New Owner Transfer form authorizing the Plaintiff to represent him on the existing 2014/2015 tax grievance for the real property, and assuming any contractual liability thereunder. On October 3, 2014, the Defendant forwarded the aforesaid New Owner Transfer form to the Plaintiff, via facsimile, together with a handwritten cover page on his legal letterhead stating: “We sold above property 10-2-14[.] New owner signed transfer for 2014/15 tax year. See attached. Please contact the new owner re: your fee and any other matter.” Whether by negotiation or inadvertent oversight, it appears that no transfer form was executed by the new owner(s) covering the pending 2015/2016 tax grievance. Based upon the above notification and submission, the Defendant asserts that he is not liable to the Plaintiff for services rendered in connection with the 2015/2016 corrected assessment. It is well-settled that ” ‘ [w]hen the terms of a written contract are clear and unambiguous, the intent of the parties must be found within the four corners of the contract, giving practical interpretation to the language employed and the parties’ reasonable expectations’ (citations omitted).” M&R Rockaway LLC v. SK Rockaway Real Estate Company, LLC, 902 N.Y.S.2d 621 (2nd Dept. 2010). At the time that the application for correction of the 2015/2016 assessed value was submitted to the Nassau County ARC, the Defendant was an eligible applicant as a record owner of the subject real property. Relying upon such contract, the Plaintiff completed and filed an application to reduce his residential tax assessment for such tax period. After the corrected assessment was finalized, the Plaintiff forwarded multiple invoices to the Defendant seeking payment for services rendered pursuant to the applicable contract. To date, no payment has been received on account of such debt. The argument that the separate written authorizations are interdependent such that the successful assignment of an earlier contract (2014/2015 tax year) consequentially voids a subsequent contract (2015/2016 tax year) does not have a sound basis in law or fact. The contracts are independently enforceable as the duty of the Plaintiff in each such document is defined and limited to filing an application/petition for a specified assessment roll, and the obligation of the Defendant in each such document is defined and limited to payment of a fee based upon the assessed value reduction for such tax year. Further, the contracts state in clear and unambiguous language that the sale of the home does not terminate or absolve the responsibilities of the parties. Therefore, in the absence of a New Owner Transfer form for the 2015/2016 tax grievance, the Defendant remains contractually liable for services rendered. To hold otherwise would systematically deprive the Plaintiff of earned compensation and legal recourse whenever a client subsequently transfers fee title and fails to secure new owner authorizations by either omission or design. Finally, the subject contract neither places an affirmative duty upon the Plaintiff to solicit a New Owner Transfer form nor grants the Plaintiff standing to compel the execution and/or delivery of same. If the applicable sale documents for the subject real property contain a surviving clause that obligates the third-party purchaser(s) to execute additional tax grievance documentation, then it remains within the exclusive purview of the named seller/grantor to demand compliance or to seek relief against any parties in privity who may have been unjustly enriched, if appropriate. The Court has reviewed the remaining contentions of the Defendant and finds them to be without merit. Based upon the foregoing, it is hereby ORDERED, that a Judgment shall be entered in favor of the Plaintiff in the sum of $2,017.00 together with costs and interest calculated from March 22, 2016; and it is further ORDERED, that the oral motion of the Defendant to dismiss this matter is hereby denied as moot. The foregoing constitutes the Decision and Order of this Court. Dated: March 11, 2022
