Citation Numbers: 194 Misc. 2d 42, 753 NYS2d 325
Judges: Nolan
Filed Date: 11/25/2002
Status: Precedential
Modified Date: 2/5/2022
OPINION OF THE COURT
In May 1996, Ball conveyed a 24.5 acre parcel, the site of its manufacturing and warehouse facility, to the industrial development agency (IDA) and, as part of the financing trans
Respondents’ motion to dismiss these proceedings is predicated on the restriction and waiver provisions contained in the PILOT agreement. Although conceding respondents’ standing to raise the restriction and waiver as a defense, Ball urges that these clauses constitute an unenforceable, unconstitutional limitation on its right to redress, what it contends, is a significant overassessment which thereby obligates it to make payments under the PILOT well in excess of what the property’s fair value should require.
Apparently, no legal precedent on this precise point has been reported. However, a provision in a PILOT agreement which required the parties to resolve real property tax assessment disputes through arbitration has been enforced. (Matter of Town of Wallkill Indus Dev. Agency v Assessor of Town of Wallkill, 270 AD2d 494 [2d Dept 2000].)
Here the clause in issue is unambiguous and admits of no doubt that Ball agreed to waive its right to pursue certiorari review under RPTL article 7 unless initiated within two years of an assessment change. Ball’s principal contention that the provision is unconstitutional and illegal, and therefore, unenforceable, lacks substance. In exchange for certain monetary advantages not otherwise available absent the financing arrangement, Ball contracted away certain rights under article 7 of the RPTL. Ball has the privilege of cancelling
Respondents’ motion is granted without costs, and petitioner’s certiorari proceedings for tax years 2001 and 2002 seeking review of the assessments of tax roll parcel 178.-1-51 are dismissed, with prejudice, and without costs.
Article XI, §§ 11.1 and 11.2 of the lease, dated May 1, 1996, between Ball and the IDA.