Pre-Answer Motion is Wrong Time to Contest the Merits in Real Property Tax Proceeding
A recent decision out of Supreme Court, Westchester County, offers a useful reminder to taxing authorities: a pre-answer motion to dismiss is not the proper vehicle for arguing that a tax assessment determination was correct on the merits. In Matter of Shewan Trust v. Assessor of the Town of Greenburgh, 90 Misc.3d 1207(A) (Sup. Ct. Westchester Cnty.), the court denied motions to dismiss brought by both the Town of Greenburgh respondents and Westchester County, underscoring the limited scope of CPLR § 3211 motions in the context of Article 78 proceedings challenging Small Claims Assessment Review (“SCAR”) determinations.
Background
The petitioner owned a single-family residence that was assessed at $967,700 for the 2025 tax year. The petitioner filed a complaint seeking a reduction to $800,000, which was denied, prompting it to pursue SCAR review under Real Property Tax Law (“RPTL”) § 730. Following a hearing, the SCAR Hearing Officer reduced the assessed market value to $926,928, a result the petitioner still viewed as excessive, so it commenced an Article 78 proceeding. Westchester County moved to dismiss under CPLR §§ 3211(a)(7) and 7804(f), arguing the petition failed to state any cause of action against it. The Town Respondents separately moved to dismiss under CPLR §§ 3211(a)(2) and (7), arguing that the Hearing Officer’s decision was supported by the weight of the evidence and was neither arbitrary nor capricious.
The Court’s Reasoning
On a motion to dismiss for failure to state a cause of action, the court must accept the petition’s allegations as true and afford the petitioner every favorable inference. Where the court considers evidentiary material outside the pleadings, the inquiry becomes whether the petitioner actually has a cause of action, not merely whether one was adequately pleaded, and dismissal is appropriate only where the evidence establishes that an alleged fact is not a fact and no significant dispute exists regarding it. Dismissal for lack of subject matter jurisdiction under CPLR § 3211(a)(2), by contrast, applies only where the matter is not the kind the court has power to decide at all, not where a party simply argues that the elements of a claim are missing.
As to the County, the court found that although the petition did not appear to assert any claim directly against it, it could not conclude at this early stage that the County would not be adversely affected by a judgment in the proceeding. Because a party who might be inequitably affected by a judgment is a necessary party that must be joined under CPLR § 1001(a), and because RPTL § 736(2) does not preclude naming additional parties beyond those named in the SCAR petition, the County’s motion was denied.
As to the Town Respondents, the court's reasoning goes to the heart of the matter: a pre-answer motion to dismiss is simply the wrong procedural tool to argue that an administrative determination should be upheld on the merits. The Town Respondents’ motion argued that the Hearing Officer's decision was supported by the weight of the evidence and was not arbitrary and capricious, but the petitioner countered that the decision rested on factual errors in certain adjustments and disregarded two comparable properties. The court held that arguing the merits of the underlying determination is not the same as raising an objection in point of law that would support pre-answer dismissal. Accepting the petition’s allegations as true, the ultimate questions in the case, whether the Hearing Officer erred factually or reached conclusions inconsistent with the evidence such that the determination lacked a rational basis, remained unresolved and could not be disposed of on a motion to dismiss. The Town Respondents likewise failed to articulate any basis for a jurisdictional challenge under CPLR § 3211(a)(2).
Hodgson Russ Insight
The decision is an illustration of the line between pleading-stage challenges and merits-stage adjudication in tax certiorari proceedings. A respondent who believes an administrative hearing officer reached the right result on the facts must make that case through an answer, the administrative record, and supporting affidavits under CPLR §§ 7804(e) and (f), not through a pre-answer motion to dismiss. The court noted that when a pre-answer motion to dismiss is denied, the respondent must be permitted to answer, and that the narrow exception allowing a court to forgo requiring an answer applies only where the facts are so fully and undisputedly presented in the parties’ papers that no prejudice results, which the court found was not the case here. Municipalities defending SCAR determinations should take note: front-loading merits arguments into a dismissal motion is unlikely to succeed, and the proper course is to answer and build the evidentiary record for the court’s ultimate review.
For questions regarding this decision or RPTL Article 7 tax assessment proceedings generally, please contact Dan Spitzer, Amy D’Ambrogio, or Henry Zomerfeld, or another member of our Tax Assessment Practice.