DECISION AND ORDER UPON DUE DELIBERATION AND CONSIDERATION BY THE COURT of the foregoing papers, including e-filed documents/exhibits numbered 1 through and including 13, this motion is decided as follows: The Petitioners are the owners of single-family owner-occupied residences located in the Village of Malverne (“Village”). These petitioners commenced small claims assessment review (“SCAR”) proceedings pursuant to Real Property Tax Law (“RPTL”), Article 7, Title 1-A to review the Village’s respective real property tax assessments for their properties for the 2020/21 tax year. The Petitioners contend that the Village did not honor the SCAR hearing officer’s decisions with respect to the reduction in the assessment for these properties. In their Answer, the Village contends it withheld compliance with the SCAR hearing determinations and requested that the hearing officer correct his Amended Decisions regarding these properties. The Village contends that it was “improper for the Hearing Officer to ignore the request of the Village and to allow such incorrect decisions to stand.” The Village’s Answer further provides that the Hearing Officer’s failure to act upon the Village’s request “would do damage to the system designed to grant tax relief when justified, and not based upon mistake or an unwillingness to apply to correct RAR to the facts in the record.” CPLR Article 78 relief from administrative determinations is available pursuant to CPLR 7803(1) (mandamus to compel) and/or CPLR 7803(3) (mandamus to review) (see Matter of Scherbyn v. Wayne-Finger Lakes Bd. of Coop. Educ. Servs., 77 NY2d 753 [1991]; Matter of Halperin v. City of New Rochelle, 24 AD3d 768 [2d Dept 2005]; CPLR §7801 [1]). Ultimately, the question presented by the Petitioners in this matter is whether or not the Village failed to perform a duty enjoined upon it by law. (CPLR 7803) It is well settled that a court may not substitute its judgment for that of the board or body it reviews unless the decision under review is arbitrary and unreasonable and constitutes an abuse of discretion. (Matter of Pell v. Board of Educ. of Union Free School Dist. No. 1 of Towns of Scarsdale & Mamaroneck, Westchester County, 34 NY2d 222 [1974]; Matter of Diocese of Rochester v. Planning Bd. of Town of Brighton, 1 NY2d 508, 520 [1956]). “The petitioners have the burden of showing that respondent’s determination was arbitrary, capricious or affected by an error of law” (Matter of Grossman v. Rankin, 43 NY2d 493 [1977]; see Matter of Rosner v. Civil Serv. Comm., 38 AD2d 628 [3d Dept 1971]). Judicial review of an administrative determination is guided by the “abuse of discretion” standard, which translates into a circumscribed judicial inquiry: the administrative determination must be upheld unless it “shock[s] the judicial conscience.” (John Paterno, Inc. by & Through Paterno v. Curiale, 88 NY2d 328, 336 [1996]). A reviewing court may not weigh the evidence or reject the choice made by the hearing officer where there is conflicting evidence and room for choice exists. (Matter of Tenemille v. Town of Ramapo, 188 AD3d 704, 705 [2d Dept 2020]) The case at bar presents a wrinkle in the ordinary review of hearing officer determinations as a matter of administrative law. The Petitioners are not appealing decisions which they believe are in error. Rather, the Petitioners seek enforcement of SCAR Hearing Determinations which the Village has ultimately rejected as “incorrect” when the Village resubmitted these determinations to the SCAR Hearing Officer for the correction of “mistakes.” A municipality is not authorized under RPTL §736[2] to seek judicial review pursuant to CPLR Article 78 of a SCAR hearing officer’s determination. (Village/Town of Scarsdale v. Moore, 200 ad 623 [2nd Dept 1994]; Board of Assessors v. Hammer, 181 AD2d 885 [2nd Dept 1992]). In enacting the small claims assessment review process, it was the intention of the New York State legislature to offer the owners of one, two, and three family residences the opportunity to challenge their tax assessment in a manner which is streamlined and cost effective. (Town of Tonawanda v. Ayler, 68 NY2d 836 [1986] [citing to 1981 N.Y.Legis.Ann., at 528-529 regarding legislative history]). By failing to acknowledge the “uncorrected” SCAR determinations at issue herein, the Village has acted in derogation of the letter and spirit of the small assessment review process, and left the Petitioners with no alternative but to seek enforcement of the binding determinations through what is essentially a writ of mandamus to compel the Village and its designees to act within the parameters of binding authority. In effect, the Village exercised what may be considered a “pocket veto” power over the determinations made by the SCAR Hearing Officer, ultimately nullifying these determinations through non-compliance. Upon a review of the papers submitted, including their supporting exhibits, and in the discretion of the Court, the Petition is GRANTED in its entirety, and it is ORDERED, that the Village is directed to issue refunds and interest to the Petitioners in accordance with RPTL §734, and it is further ORDERED, that the Village is to correct Petitioners’ 2021/21 Village assessments in accordance with RPTL §737 and issue any property tax refunds that may be due and owing to Petitioners as a result thereof. This constitutes the Decision and Order of the Court. Dated: March 7, 2023
