|
15 Leland Ave.
P.O. Box 578
Schroon Lake, New York 12870
Phone #518-532-7737 Ext. 14 Fax #518-532-9474 Office Hours 8am - 4 pm
-- Update on Status of Lawsuit filed
by the Schroon Lake Taxpayers Association Against the Town of
Schroon.
In late October of 2006 the Schroon Lake
Taxpayers filed
an article 78
against the Assessors of the Town of Schroon.
There were a number of claims made but the primary
claims were that the level of assessment was not 100% and that the assessments
were inequitable. In the initial lawsuit one claimed inequity was that
high value properties appeared to over assessed - relatively speaking.
An amended lawsuit was filed in March or so of
2007. There were two major changes in this lawsuit. First the charge
of favoritism was added. Second a statistical analysis supporting the
above charges was included. This analysis was made by a Professor of
Statistics at RPI.
There are two important points to be made about
this. First the Professor used the wrong set of data. Second
his analysis indicated that high value properties were likely substantially
under assessed.
The Town of Schroon moved to have all the charges
thrown out.
In a ruling issued on August 30, 2007 Judge Dawson of Essex County did just that
- with one exception.
He threw out five of six charges and a
portion of the sixth.
He did not throw out the charge of favoritism.
In a recent email Stanley March claimed that this
amounted to winning the lawsuit on the issue of favoritism.
This is false.
This judgment was on the motion to dismiss
the charge.
It had nothing to do with the merits of the charge.
It is very very difficult to get charges dismissed.
I believe anyone who reads the decision will see
this.
For example in the case of an Article 78 the court
deems the charge to be true.
And it gives the petitioners every favorable
inference.
My understanding of this is that courts believe
everyone should have their day in court.
Therefore they are very reluctant to dismiss a
charge without a hearing.
I believe therefore it is a major accomplishment
that we were successful in getting five claims and a portion of the sixth
dismissed outright.
Currently the SLTA has appealed the motion to dismiss the other charges.
|
