5 SCAR Hearing Examples Show a Critical Need for Change

By Warren Leisenring, Jr.

Disclaimer: The information in this article is only what the writer has experienced and the conclusions he has made from those experiences. Any other conclusions made from this article are only those of the individual reader and not expressed by the Tax My Property Fairly website.

I have written four Case Studies for the Tax My Property Fairly website to help property owners in the grieving process with their property tax assessments. This year I was involved with five SCAR cases in upstate New York. I have combined all of these into this article to show why there is a critical need for change. The supporting documents are not attached due to the length of this article but are available if requested without personal information.

New York State is divided into thirteen Judicial Districts, seven of those are downstate and on Long Island. The other six I would classify as mid to upstate New York. Due to personal information for both the property owners and the Hearing Officers not being released, I am only stating in whatDistrict the SCAR cases took place.

I have always been told to obey the law and to give everyone a fair chance. This is what everyone should do. You will see in this article that not everyone believes in the same thing.
‍

SCAR HEARING #1:

The property owner lives in the Fourth Judicial District. The person I was representing was 226 miles away from where I am located. I filled out the SCAR form and mailed it to the property owner along with the supporting documents. The property owner needed to sign the form and distribute copies to the required places. The original three forms were delivered in person to the Supreme County Clerks office within the required timeframe. All other copies were mailed within 10 days after filing as required on the RPTL 730-a Instruction form. For some unknown reason, the Supreme County Clerk's office took it upon themselves and sent the property owner's petition and all supporting documents to the assessor. This is NOT the responsibility of the Supreme Court Clerk. (Flow of Procedures in SCAR) It is the property owner's responsibility to mail the petition to the local assessor. (SCAR Petition Instructions) Now the assessor had over a month to review the property owner's grievance and come up with reasons why it should be dismissed.

The SCAR Hearing was to be held by a Zoom meeting on Tuesday September 3rd. On August 7th, I received this email from the Hearing Officer.

"Once your hearing date is set, I request that any additional documents that the parties wish to submit be submitted via email and copied to all parties (Petitioner, Petitioner representative (if applicable), Assessor, SCAR Hearing Officer) no later than the 2 PM the day before the scheduled hearing date. This request is for both zoom and in person meetings. You are not required to submit documents early however, especially during zoom meetings, this will assure that what you would like to present was provided."

Included in my supporting documents were:

A cover letter explaining how the grievance was being done.
A spreadsheet of six comparable properties within twelve miles of the subject property.
A copy of the Valuation Standards from the Assessor's manual.
A copy of the RP-524 Instruction form.
Property Identification cards for all comparable properties from the County website.
A copy of the Current Comparable Sales Analysis Adjustment Formula to show exactly how adjustments were made to each property.
A copy of the pamphlet on "How to Estimate the Market Value of Your Home".

Although the assessor had received the complete grievance and supporting documents from the property owner, he had not supplied any information to the property owner's representative defending the assessment he (the assessor) had assigned to the property. This is a requirement by NYS that any assessment being challenged by a property owner needs to be defended by the assessor. On September 2nd (also Labor Day) at 12:54 pm, (66 minutes before the deadline) I received an email from the assessor with five attachments. The attachments included the assessor's exterior photos of comparable properties with absolutely no adjustments made to any property. The assessor claimed I made no individual adjustments for the differences between the properties even though they were clearly listed on the spreadsheet in my supporting documents.

The assessor knew I could not prepare a rebuttal and send it to the Hearing officer on the information I had just received before the stated deadline of 2:00 pm which was also Labor Day. After having over 30 days to review the grievance, it was very devious of the assessor to hold back all the information until the last minute.

THE DAY OF THE HEARING:

The assessor emailed the Hearing Officer (10:28 am) a copy of the SCAR Petition he stated was not certified or signed after the deadline and 32 minutes prior to the Hearing. Even though it was well past the deadline for presenting evidence, the Hearing Officer accepted the assessor's email as evidence.

All parties came together on a Zoom meeting at 11:00 am. The Hearing was scheduled for 40 minutes, and I was to be given 10 to 15 minutes to explain why I felt the assessment was excessive. I began to give my explanation on how and why the grievance was being done when approximately two minutes after I began, the Hearing Officer stated, "I was bashing the system and did not want to hear it." The assessor immediately requested a dismissal because he did not receive a certified copy of the Petition within the allowed timeframe and that it was not properly signed. This was an unintentional oversight by the property owner. The Hearing Officer stated she would consider the assessor's request. The property owner, my associate and I felt it looked like a pre-planned attack by the Hearing Officer and the assessor.

SCAR Hearings are to be informal and small technicalities such as this can be corrected at the hearing. I had proof the Petition was received at the Assessor's office only four days after being filed with the County Clerk's Office. Both the Hearing Officer and the assessor, had in their possession, copies of the original Petition that were sent to them by the County Clerk showing the Original Petitions were actually properly signed. Neither the Hearing Officer or the assessor cared to look at those documents.

Because the assessor's copy of the petition was accidently not signed, I asked the Hearing Officer if I could testify under oath that the Eligibility and Certification information on the Petition was correct. Unbelievably, I was denied that request. Again, SCAR Hearings are to be informal, and information can be corrected at the hearing, but not this one.

I then asked if I could rebut the information the assessor provided to me 66 minutes before the deadline on Labor Day. It took me hours to prepare a complete rebuttal. Again, I was denied that request. Even though the assessor’s information was accepted after the deadline, I could not give a rebuttal during the Hearing. As stated earlier, it was clear to me that for some reason I was being railroaded by this Hearing Officer.

The assessor and the Hearing Officer both had my name wrong on the official documents. The assessor in his defense of the comparable properties and the Hearing Officer on the Notice of Hearing SCAR USC 905 form. They both had my name as William and not Warren. It was okay for those technicalities to be corrected at the hearing, but I could not correct an oversight made by the property owner on the SCAR form or a rebuttal of the assessor's last second evidence, even when under oath.

The Hearing was then abruptly ended.

I contacted another Hearing Officer that I knew and explained to him what went on and he said this Hearing Officer was way out of line. He gave me names of officials that I should contact and tell them of what happened. He said I should do this before any decision by the Hearing Officer was filed and I did just that.

SCAR DECISION:

The decision of the Hearing Officer mailed to me was postmarked on September 10th and received by me on September 13th. It stated the decision was filed at the County Clerk's Office on September 5th. I called the clerks office on September 13th and was told the decision had not yet been filed or received in their office.

This is the exact decision:

"Assessor: Requested dismissal due to failure to provide signed petition to assessor. Assessor provided proof of copy of petition he received. Assessor stated that results provided are skewed. Representative did not visit properties, comps are not comparable, Mr. Leisenring is an Appraiser and can not be an advocate for the petitioner, appraisal does not meet acceptable standards. Assessor explained methodology and review of comparable properties. Disqualified by reason of Petition to assessor not properly served."

The assessor requested dismissal due to the failure to provide a signed copy of the petition to the assessor. For thirty days prior to the hearing, the assessor and the Hearing Officer had a copy of the original signed petition in their possession they had received from the County Clerk. The Hearing Officer's claim in the decision that I am an appraiser is false. I am not an appraiser. The claim that I cannot be an advocate for the petitioner is false. Any property owner may assist another property owner with a grievance. The claim that my appraisal does not meet acceptable standards is false. It is not an appraisal; it is a guide with an estimate of the market value of the property owner's home set by the standards recommended by New York State and the Office of Real Property Tax Services in their published pamphlet titled "How to Estimate the Market Value of Your Home." The hearing was ultimately disqualified on a technicality that was not true.

On September 13th, I immediately sent an email and letter to the Fourth Judicial District Administrative Judge explaining what had happened and requested a new Hearing Officer. I received a return letter dated October 18th from the Associate Court Attorney unbelievably stating:

"Please be advised that the District Administrative Judge has no authority to reassign a small claims assessment review "SCAR" proceeding to another Hearing Officer based on the request of a party or such party's representative. The circumstances under which a SCAR proceeding may be reassigned are set forth in Article 7, Title 1-A of the Real Property Tax Law and section 202.58 of the Uniform Rules for the New York State Trial Courts and, pursuant to statute and court rule, reassignment generally follows notice by the assigned hearing officer that he or she is disqualified to hear the matter. Please be further advised that the District Administrative Judge may not intervene in a SCAR proceeding or review the matter for any improprieties or errors of law. Finally, your claims regarding the involved SCAR Hearing Officer's conduct in the above referenced matter have been placed in her file and may be reviewed when considering the Hearing Officer's continued service."‍

With the shortage of Hearing Officers, and this Hearing Officer being a retired assessor, I highly doubt that anything was actually put into the Hearing Officer's file. It is not that the Hearing Officer was disqualified to hear the matter, it was more of a prejudice against a property owner and that an assessor will never disagree or go against another. It must be an unwritten law. (as seen later in this article)

The decision of the Hearing Officer was not received at the County Clerk's Office until September 23rd. The Hearing Officer made a false statement on an official document by stating the decision was filed on September 5th.

This is my rebuttal on the assessor's claims that I was not allowed to provide.

Assessor's Arguments:

Claim #1: "All the subject properties living area is above ground. The comparable properties listed by Mr. Leisenring simply adds the SFLA, Finished Basement, Barns, pools, and porches and then divides them by the assessed value minus the land. This completely skews the results. A separate adjustment and value for each of these must be given. So did he not visit any of these properties himself to verify the data or at least take photographs of the property?"

Answer: His statement on simply adding the SFLA, Finished Basement, Barns, Pool and Porches and then dividing them by the assessed value is clearly false. Nothing is done by the assessed value. All adjustments are made by using the full market values. He obviously did not understand the spreadsheet, the individual adjustments or how the grievance was being done.

I looked at the properties through Real Estate websites and aerial maps. Even if I had visited the comparable properties, I would not be able to access the interiors for that information. I can guarantee you the assessor did not enter each of the comparable properties either. I relied on the information the assessor had listed on the County Property Identification cards which is to be accurate and updated every year. As with the assessor, all the information supplied by the assessor on the County website "is presumed to be correct."

Claim #2: Comparable #1: Does not give separate adjustments for the size of the garage, finished basement, and living area. When these are separated and given the proper adjustments the assessed value of this comparable actually proves my assessment to be correct.

Answer: The assessor provided no so called "proper adjustments" to support his statement.

Claim #3: Comparable #2: Does not give separate adjustments for the size of the garage, finished basement, and living area. When these are separated and given the proper adjustments the assessed value of this comparable actually proves my assessment to be correct.

Answer: The assessor provided no so called "proper adjustments" to support his statement.

Claim #4: Comparable #3: Does not give separate adjustments for the size of the garage, finished basement, and living area. When these are separated and given the proper adjustments the assessed value of this comparable actually proves my assessment to be correct.

Answer: The assessor provided no so called "proper adjustments" to support his statement.

Claim #5: Comparable #4 The SFLA listed in the Analysis is wrong. SFLA is only 2,224 not 3,160. Using his method the value would be $76.34 per SFLA which further supports my value. The 936 Sq. Ft. on the second floor is unfinished and not included in the SFLA.

Answer: The house was built in 2011. Other than his verbal statement, he provided no proof that the second floor is still unfinished after 13 years.

Claim #6: Comparable #5: Was a nice house. It is now surrounded by junk vehicles and located away from the main road. Again, the garage and pool were not given separate adjustments.

Answer: No adjustments were given for the pool because it was not classified as any LS1- LS9 style on the property identification card established by the assessor. No visible photos were available to ascertain if it was in ground or above ground).

Claim #7: Comparable #6: Property is located in a neighboring town and should not be used when comparing assessments as there is a different assessor and different equalization rates.

Answer: Assessor's Manual - Valuation Standards 1.4.1 states: "Appropriate market areas may cross municipal boundaries". When using the Full Market Values of Comparable Properties (as in this case), it makes no difference who the assessor is or what the Equalization Rates are. If the assessor had taken a closer look at the Adjusted Sale Price, he would have seen that Comparable Properties #5 & 6 were not used in the final average as they were removed as the high and low values.

Claim #8: The assessor states I provided no pictures of any of my comparable properties. I also provided no pictures of the subject property which all leads me (the assessor) to ask if I visited any of these properties.

Answer: I did not visit the properties because I could not access the interior of the properties. Neither did the assessor. I relied on Satellite Imagery (as many assessors do) and the information the assessor supplied on the property identification cards on the County website, which, as it is with the assessor, is always presumed to be correct.

Claim #9: While Mr. Leisenring Jr. is not an appraiser, he has still been hired to represent the property owner. As such he is considered a professional and held to a higher standard than property owners. According to the Uniformed Standards of Professional Appraisal Practice (USPAP) Mr. Leisenring is acting in an unethical manner by representing the property owner and his appraisal/property analysis.

Answer: There is no law or standard that prevents one property owner from helping a fellow property owner with their property tax assessment. I have nothing to do with the so called USPAP. If I ever have acted in an unethical manner, I certainly would not be a consultant for this website. The appraisal/property analysis spoken of by the assessor is his interpretation only. Nowhere is it stated that the formula is an appraisal. Instead, it clearly states in red at the beginning it is only a guide.

Claim #10: Finally, the assessor stated this: Request for dismissal. I was not served with a certified petition within 10 days of the filing with the County Clerk. If you look at the scanned copy of the petition I received, neither the property owner nor her representative signed part IV Eligibility and Certification of the petition.

Answer: It is not required for the assessor to receive a certified copy of the petition. It can be by regular mail and proof was provided it was mailed within the ten-day period. Both the assessor and Hearing Officer had copies of the original petition in their possession for over 30 days that were sent to them by the County Clerk, proving the original copies were signed. These were ignored.

Why was this allowed to happen?

Small Claims Assessment Review Hearings are to be an informal hearing where both the property owner and the assessor can give their reasons why they believe the assessment is correct or incorrect. The Hearing Officer prevented this from happening.
Hearing Officers are to remain neutral and make their decisions based on the evidence provided. It was clear this did not happen and was in violation of the State's Code of Ethics.
Hearing Officers are sworn to uphold the laws, not bend or ignore them.
The assessor was given unlimited leeway by providing information after the deadline set by the Hearing Officer. While the property owner was denied every step of the way.
The decision was based on a technicality rather than evidence provided. This is not a criminal hearing.
Both the Hearing Officer and the assessor had signed copies of the petition in hand but ignored the evidence.
Mistakes by the Hearing Officer and assessor were corrected at the hearing but the oversight by the property owner was held to the "letter" of the law.
The assessor made many false claims without merit about the property owner's representative and his testimony. They were all believed by the Hearing Officer.
The Hearing was held by Zoom for the convenience of the Hearing Officer and not in person which is the right of the property owner.
In circumstances such as these, why can't the Supreme Courts overrule the Hearing Officer's decision and actions and reassign the case? Are Hearing Officers more powerful than our Supreme Courts?
Why is a retired assessor allowed to be a Hearing Officer? This is clearly a conflict of interest.
Why can a Hearing Officer intentionally put a false filing date of 9-5-24 on the Decision of the Hearing Officer form when it was received and filed at the County Clerk's office on 9-23-24?
The Hearing Officer took the word of the assessor that the representative's comparable were not comparable. According to NYS requirements, they were all valid comparable properties. Do the assessor’s and Hearing Officer's beliefs on what comparable properties are, supersede the State requirements and descriptions or is it maybe they just do not know the requirements and make their own rules up as they go?
Why did the Hearing Officer deny verifying the Eligibility & Certification at the hearing when it is common practice to verify it at a hearing?

In retrospect, when the Hearing Officer first contacted me, we spoke about the lack of training for assessors and Boards of Assessment Review and how I was trying to address this issue. She said to me that our thinking was down the same path. She said she could give me names of people to contact and that we should discuss this more after the Hearing and decision was made. I said that would be good because I did not want to influence her decision. Now knowing she is a retired assessor, I fully believe she used what we discussed against me and acted the way she did.

‍

SCAR HEARING #2

The property owner lives in the Fourth Judicial District, the same District as in SCAR Hearing #1. The person I was representing was 240 miles away from where I am located. I filled out the SCAR form and mailed it to the property owner along with the supporting documents. The property owner needed to sign the form and distribute copies to the required places. All of this was done properly.

The SCAR Hearing was to be held in person on September 23rd. Prior to the SCAR Hearing I submitted supporting documents to the Hearing Officer proving the assessment should be lowered from $119,100.00 to $71,696.00.

Included in my supporting documents were:

A spreadsheet of ten comparable properties to the subject property that were taken from the same assessment roll.
A copy of the pamphlet published by the NYS Department of Taxation & Finance and the Office of Real Property Tax Services recommending the process on how a property owner should grieve their property tax assessment.
A copy of the RP-524 Instruction form stating that comparable properties can come from the same assessment roll.
A copy of the RP-525 form from the Board of Assessment Review showing there was no reason given by the Board of Assessment Review for denying the assessment which is required by law.
A copy of the Current Comparable Sales Analysis Adjustment Formula I developed to explain how all adjustments were made to make each comparable property equal to the subject property.

THE DAY OF THE HEARING:

The property owner, my associate and I appeared before the assessor and the Hearing Officer. I provided the assessor and Hearing Officer with a spreadsheet of the ten comparable properties and that the average Adjusted Sale Price showed the subject property was Excessively Assessed when compared to others on the same assessment roll. All the comparable properties were within eight miles of the subject property. The property owner also added pertinent information for the grievance.

I then provided proof that the five comparable properties provided by the assessor had significant errors in them than what was stated by the assessor.

All the square foot living area prices were incorrect. They included the value of the land and exterior buildings.
One comparable property he said had a partial basement. Photos we provided of that property showed the basement was a full basement. The comparable property's driveway was paved while the subject property had a gravel driveway.
One comparable property had been significantly and recently remodeled. This was not adjusted for or noted by the assessor.

After a lengthy discussion that seemed to be going nowhere, the Hearing Officer asked the assessor a generic question on what he felt a residence with the same square footage would sell for on today's market? Seizing a great opportunity, off the top of his head and no proof to support it, the assessor's reply was about $130,000.00. Now anyone should know the assessor would give an estimation of a new house in excellent condition and excellent overall grade. The subject house in question was 47 years old, in fair condition and an overall grade of economy. I believe this was a set-up question to damage the grievance seeing as the Hearing Officer was an appraiser.

SCAR DECISION:

The Hearing Officer denied any reduction in the assessment. In his decision, he stated:

"Extensive data and analysis was provided by the plaintiff. The directions for comparable comparison from ORPTS was followed. However, there were no comparable sales of $72,000.00 properties to gauge subject value. Additionally, historic appreciation has occurred since purchase in 2019 for $70,000.00."

I do not believe the Hearing Officer ever read the information provided to him. He only quoted what I had said to him at the hearing. If he had read the material, he would have known what New York State recommends if there were no comparable sales to gauge the subject value. He would have also known it was not about what the market value or the purchase price was for the subject property. As stated on the RP-524 form and the RP-524 Instruction form, it is how the subject property compares to others on the same assessment roll after adjustments are made to make them equal. He based his entire decision on the generic and vague question he asked the assessor. Not the facts that were provided by the plaintiff.

The Hearing Officer in this grievance was a Real Estate Agent and Appraiser who seemed to be focused only on the market value of the property and not aware of what the requirements and instructions are from the New York State Department of Transportation & Finance and Office of Real Property Tax Services for grieving a property tax assessment. In fact, he stated that the Office of Real Property Tax Services no longer existed, which was a false statement. Maybe that is the why he felt to side with the assessor and ignore the evidence that was provided by me and the property owner.

‍

SCAR HEARING #3

This SCAR Hearing took place in the Third Judicial District which was 190 miles from my location. All required forms were mailed and filed on time. The Hearing was held in person on September 9th, 2024.

This was a unique grievance because the Town and the County had separate Tax Rolls and different Equalization Rates.

My supporting documents included:

A copy of the Town & County Tax Rolls showing the subject property.
A copy of the pamphlet on "How to Estimate the Market Value of Your Property".
A copy of the RP-524 Instruction Form.
A copy of my "Current Comparable Sales Adjustment Formula".
A cover letter explaining how the grievance was being done.
A copy of the Valuation Standards from the Assessor's Manual.
A spreadsheet on the Assessor's comparable properties.
Photos and details of the Assessor's comparable properties.

THE DAY OF THE HEARING:

I submitted and explained the evidence I had to the attorney and the Hearing Officer proving the assessment of the subject property was excessive.

The Town and the Assessor were represented by a law firm and an attorney. The attorney stated in a cover letter that:

"The petitioner challenges the 2024 assessment of the subject property, a 5,592 square foot three-family home on 2.36 acres. The home was constructed in 2005, has natural gas/forced air heating and has an aggregate of six bedrooms, three full bathrooms, two half bathrooms and three fireplaces. A copy of the property records from the County database is attached.

The property was initially assessed for $419,000 on the tentative roll. The Town's equalization rate and Residential Assessment Ratio are both at 65 percent. The implied market value of the tentative assessment was $644,615.

The assessor, upon reviewing data related to the property and the land, recommended a reduction in the assessed value to $386,700 (an implied market value of $594,923). This accounted for a revised land value and the removal of a shed on the property.

The property was purchased in an arm's length transaction in 2021 for $506,172.

It is the Town's position that the subject assessment accurately reflects the property's implied market value based upon the 2021 arm's length transaction and the appreciation of the real estate market in the past three years. There are no comparable three-family home sales in the Town."

Other questions the attorney asked me were:

Did I physically inspect the exterior my comparable properties?
Did I physically inspect the interior of my comparable properties?
How do you know the information is accurate?

My answers to the first two questions were "No, neither did the assessor."

Assessors may drive by a property to physically look at it. Otherwise, it is done by pictometry. Pictometry is what I used to view the exterior of the properties. Very rarely are assessors ever allowed to enter a residence. The best information that can be obtained for the interior of a residence is the data the assessor enters into the property identification card and then posts on the County website.

The assessor is always presumed to be correct. Therefore, the information provided by the assessor is also presumed to be correct. Another source are actual photos of the interiors that are posted by real estate companies. These are what I used.

It is not uncommon for a person to overpay for a property at certain times but that should not be held as a life sentence against the property owner. Market values fluctuate up and down just as everything else depending upon the circumstances at that time.

Although the attorney stated there were no comparable three-family sales in the Town, the assessor provided five comparable properties to the subject property. The information listed for the assessor's comparable properties was not accurate. Many of the properties had been renovated and adjustments for these renovations were not made. I provided the interior photos of these properties in my supporting documents. All of the square foot living area prices were incorrect as they all included the price of the land.

I supplied a spreadsheet with the proper adjustments made to the assessor's comparable properties. The average adjusted full market sale price for the subject property was $471,412.00. The property owner was asking for a full market value of $500,000.00. This alone proved the property was excessively assessed.

SCAR DECISION:

Finally after three months and many inquires, on December 5th, 2024, I received the Hearing Officer's decision. The decision is supposed to be made within 30 days.

This is the Hearing Officer's decision:

"The subject property was initially tentatively assessed for $419,000.00, with an implied market value of $644,615.00. The town's equalization rate and residential assessment ratio are 65%. This was lowered by the assessor to the current assessment of $386,700.00, which is an implied market value of $594,923.00. This was based on a revised land value and the removal of a shed on the property. The property is a 5,592 square foot three family home on 2.36 acres. The home is a colonial constructed in 2005, and has 6 bedrooms, three full bathrooms and 2 half bathrooms. The property was sold in an arm's length transaction in 2021 for $506,172.00.

Petitioner, through a representative, asserts excessive assessment and argues that the full market value of the property is $500,000.00, with an assessed value of $325,000.00. Petitioner bases this on a Comparable Sales Analysis Adjustment Formula applied to the property's town, county and assessor's values and then averaged. Petitioner provides spreadsheets for the property's town, county and assessor's values and then made adjustments. Petitioner asserts that the average for the three shows a full market value of $502,130.00 and an assessed value of $326,384.50, which is close to the requested reduction.

Respondent, through counsel, states that it is the Town's position that the assessment accurately reflects the property's implied market value based on the 2021 arm's length transaction and the appreciation of the real estate market in the past three years. Respondent asserts that there are no comparable three family home sales in the Town.

There were five comparable properties identified and whose information is before me. I do not find that any of the properties provided to me truly are comparable to the subject property. The subject property was built in 2005 and has a square footage of 5,592. The comparable properties are all much older and only have slightly comparable square footage to the subject property. The burden of proof is on the Petitioner to overcome the presumption that the assessment is correct. I have reviewed Petitioner's analysis of the property and the adjustments set forth, but do not credit the averages reached, and Petitioner's burden has not been met.

Based on the evidence provided, an adjustment is not warranted."

DECISION RESPONSE:‍

After reading the Hearing Officer's decision, I decided to write the Hearing Officer a response to what I thought of the decision.

This is the contents of the letter:

I received your decision on the SCAR Hearing for my client today. Although I honor and respect your decision, I do not agree or believe you understood how it was being grieved. You stated the comparable properties provided to you were not truly comparable to the subject property. In the pamphlet published and highly recommended by the New York State Department of Taxation & Finance and the Office of Real Property Tax Services titled "How to Estimate the Market Value of Your Home", (in my supporting documents) they state that you will most likely not find an exact comparable property and therefore must make adjustments for the differences between the properties. This was done.

You also state the "Respondent, through counsel, states that it is the Town's position that the assessment accurately reflects the property's implied market value based on the 2021 arm's length transaction and the appreciation of the real estate market in the past three years. Respondent asserts that there are no comparable three family home sales in the Town. When there are no comparable sales, other means may be used.

When grieving an assessment by Excessive Assessment, it is no longer how much a property may sell for. Many people do not understand this even though it is clearly stated on the RP-524 Instruction form.(my supporting documents) It is about the equalization of assessments among similar properties on the same assessment roll. My grievance proved the equalization of assessments between the subject property and others on the same assessment roll was off and needed to be adjusted.

This is further proven by the enclosed email from the Executive Director of the New York State Assessor's Association when proposing this question to him.

All of the information I read from NYS Department of Taxation & Finance and the Office of Real Property Tax Services leads me to believe that when a property owner grieves the full market value of their residential property and uses the full market values from other comparable residential properties from the same assessment roll (using a spreadsheet), it is how their property's full market value compares to those comparable properties full market values.

This is the reason for using comparable properties and then making adjustments for any differences between the properties. This is where Excessive Assessment comes in. Why should a property owner be assessed more for something they may or may not have?

It is not how much the property may sell for any longer, it is about the equalization among properties on the assessment roll. Properties should be assessed the same value for the same items (bathrooms, kitchens, fireplaces, etc.) after adjustments for age and condition are made.

We all know that the CAMA system relies solely on the information that is imputed in it. If the information is not accurate it causes Excessive and Unequal assessments within the assessment roll. When grieving, the property owner may only be exposing this inequity and want their property to be equally assessed to others on the same assessment roll.

So, would I be correct in stating that when a property owner grieves their property tax assessment by using comparable properties from the same assessment roll and making adjustments for the differences, it is more how their property compares to other similar properties on the same assessment roll than what the property may sell for? It is more about being equally assessed to others on the same assessment roll than anything else.

His response was this:

Yes, when it comes to assessments, it is how the properties are assessed in relation to other similar properties. If a municipality is not in annual reassessment, then it really does not matter if the house sold for more or less than the value, rather how it compares to similarly assessed properties.

I would agree with what you are saying.

Continuing with my letter:

When adjustments were made to the assessors’ five-three family comparable properties, (my supporting documents) it proved the equalization was off and needed to be adjusted down to a full market value of $471,412.00 or an assessed value of $306,417.00. I was asking for a full market value of $500,000.00 or an assessed value of $325,000.00. Higher than what the actual equalization was off. A property owner should not be given a "life sentence" for making a mistake or overpaying for a property.

I welcome any comment you may have and hope you consider this evidence in any further SCAR decisions you may make."

I did not receive any response from the Hearing Officer to my letter. Pertaining to this grievance and Town, it was not in an annual reassessment so it should not have mattered what the house sold for. It should have been as I had proven and how it compared to similarly assessed properties.

‍

SCAR HEARING #4

This SCAR Hearing was in the 7th Judicial District and done by a telephone conference call on January 6, 2025. It took this long because the original Hearing Officer that was assigned was in Long Island, NY. and did not schedule a hearing within a reasonable timeframe so I requested another Hearing Officer through the Supreme Courts. I had the same thing happen two years prior with the same Hearing Officer.

My supporting documents included:

A spreadsheet of seven comparable properties.
The RP-524 Instruction form.
The pamphlet on "How to Estimate the Market Value of Your Home".
A copy of my Current Comparable Sales Analysis Adjustment Formula.
The email from the Executive Director of the New York State Assessor's Association used in SCAR Hearing #3.

The Hearing Officer had requested that all information be shared between the assessor and the property owner prior to the conference call. Once the assessor had received my information, she had several findings regarding to my comparable properties. I will list her findings and then give my response to those findings.

Finding #1

The first thing I noticed was it appears the actual age is being used as "effective year built" on five of the eight properties being analyzed, including the subject. However, three of the properties used listing effective age. Effective age is the number of years indicated by the condition of the building. If there has been better than average maintenance and/or upgrades to the building that would impact the overall effective age.

Answer:

Assessor's Manual 8.5 - Effective Year Built: The "effective year built" is used to record the effective age o the building(s) on site. Typically, effective age is determined by comparing the physical condition of one building with that of other like-use newer buildings. Effective age may of may not reflect the actual or chronological age, since maintenance and design are factors that may increase or decrease the aging process. For a complete guide to this topic and some sample calculations, see Assessor's Manual, Commercial Building Section 9.

Assessor's Manual 8.6 - Year Remodeled: This item is used to record the year in which the subject property was remodeled. Usually this means that there was enough remodeling activity to affect a property value change. This item will be a factor in the calculation of Effective Year Built.

Photos of the interior of the three comparable properties in question substantiated the change in the Effective Year Built.

Finding #2:

The total square feet of Comparable Property #1 is 1,377 square feet larger than the subject property. It is also a two-family home, not a one family home. I would not consider this property a valid comparable to the subject property. That becomes apparent by the 47% net adjustment made to this property.

Answer:

Even though this may be listed as a two-family home, they are very similar in age, style, condition and location. Estimated adjustments were made to make each property to make them equal as suggested by New York Department of Taxation & Finance and the Office of Real Property Tax Services. If this is not a valid comparable property then how do you validate a 3,013 square foot residence with a full basement being assessed for less than a 1,636 square foot residence with a partial basement?

Finding #3:

The comparable property #2 has an adjustment for an additional kitchen, however, the data presented lists only one kitchen within that property. It also indicates there is a 432 square foot finished basement. However, I do not see an adjustment for the finished basement area.

Answer:

The assessor claims the adjustment in the space for "kitchen" is for an addition kitchen. It is not for an additional kitchen. Everyone knows that a kitchen built in 1920 does not compare to a kitchen built in 2006. The adjustment made in this space is to adjust for the difference and to make them equal. This is clearly stated in my Current Comparable Sales Analysis Adjustment Formula.

The assessor states that there is no adjustment for the finished basement. The finished basement is listed as a recreational area. Until recently recreational areas were not assessed as living area. If an adjustment for the recreational area had been made it would only support the argument that the subject property was excessively assessed even more.

Finding #4:

For comparable properties one through four a flat adjustment of $13,000.00 is applied for the lack of a full basement. It seems no consideration was given to the size of the basement in this adjustment.

Answer:

The $13,000.00 adjustment for the difference between a partial basement and a full basement is a very conservative number. It could range as high as $60,000.00. All basements are not the same and most of the time assessors do not know if the basement is a finished area, wet or unfinished. As with all adjustments, this is only an estimated number. Larger square foot residences (as in this case) would mean larger minus adjustments and would favor the subject property.

Finding #5:

The adjustment for square foot living area ranges from $81.55 to $164.00. It appears Mr. Leisenring derived this number by subtracting the land value from the total assessed value and then divided the remainder by the total square foot of living area. For real estate appraisal purposes this is not the proper way to calculate contributory value. Contributory values should be derived from analysis of similar valid arm's length sales.

Obviously, I'm not aware of Mr. Leisenring's real estate appraisal training, however because he mentioned he's been in construction for 50 years caused me to wonder if he is aware of the difference between cost value and contributory value. It is very important to understand the difference in real estate appraisal practice.

Adjustments made to comparable properties should be extracted from the market. It may be accomplished using various methods. When attempting to establish the market value of a single-family residential property, the sales comparison approach is the most appropriate and often used method.

Answer:

An "assessors’ manual for square foot living area" is a guide used by assessors that outlines the standardized methods for measuring and calculating the square footage of a residential property's living space, typically following guidelines set by the American National Standards Institute (ANSI) to ensure consistency and accuracy in property valuations; it specifies which area are considered living space, how to measure them, and what should be excluded when determining the total square footage of a home.

ANSI Standards: Most assessors utilize the ANSI Z765 standard for measuring living space, which defines specific criteria for including or excluding areas like basements, attics, and loft-based factors like ceiling height and intended use.

The manual will detail how to measure the dimensions of a property, including using exterior wall measurements to calculate square footage, and how to handle areas with unusual shapes like bay windows or angled walls.

Exclusions from living area: Areas like garages, carports, unfinished basements, and open porches are typically excluded from the calculation of living space.

Land value is NOT included in ANSI standards for calculating the square footage of a residence. Land value, which is the worth of the land on which a property sits, is distinct from the gross living area of the home itself. It's typically considered in appraisals, but it's not directly part of the ANSI measurement process.

Contributory Value: I am well aware of the contributory value of what items have to the overall assessment. Cost value is what it would be to rebuild a residence at today's market. The contributory value is the value of something that is being replaced such as an existing deck or roof to the original assessment. The cost value may be $10,000.00 but the contributory value may only be $4,000.00.

Comparable Properties: All properties listed on the current assessment roll are assessed at full market value from similar comparable sales of those properties taken from the current market. This is done by the assessor.

When grieving an assessment, the RP-524 instruction form states; "Market value can be estimated from a recent sale of your property or from an analysis of recent sales of comparable properties". It also states that market values and assessments of a sample of other properties on the same assessment roll may be used. Any adjustments made to those properties to make them equal is only an educated guess and is always fluctuating. Just as it is with assessments. This is stated in the pamphlet on "How to Estimate the Market Value of Your Home".

The assessor mentioned that this was a reassessment year and that sales data was and should be used. I agreed and that is how all residential full market values on the current final assessment roll were achieved. With that being said, it is the full market values based on the current sales data that the assessor posted on the final assessment roll that were used for comparison purposes. When grieving an assessment by Excessive Assessment, it is how the subject property compares equally to the others on the same assessment roll after adjustments have been made and not if the subject property could sell for more or less than the estimated full market value. This was supported in an email from the Executive Director of the New York State Assessors Association.

ASSESSOR'S COMPARABLE PROPERTIES:

The assessor supplied a list of 31 properties from the same road with only one highlighted in yellow. I believe the assessor thought this was a good comparable property as it was next door to the subject property and assessed only $1,400.00 lower. However, when adjustments were made to make it equal to the subject property, the new adjusted sale price showed the subject property was excessively assessed by $132,789.00.

The assessor provided three comparable properties by recent sales to prove the subject property's assessment was accurate. The assessor failed to state that the three comparable properties all were recently and substantially remodeled which would change the Effective Build Date. I proved proof of the remodeling by supplying photos of the interiors of each property.

The assessor provided five comparable properties by comparable assessments. No adjustments were shown or made for partial to full basements, bathrooms, central air or square living footage.

Finally, the assessor provide a photo of the subject property pointing out a new fence in 2022, a large outbuilding in 2012 and that the home is well maintained.

I countered this by stating exterior structures and fences are included in the land value. This was shown by the subject property and the next-door property having the same land area of .38 acres but the subject property had a land value of $13,600.00 higher due to the fence and outbuilding.

The assessor should have paid more attention to the photo she supplied as it clearly proved how inaccurate the assessments were. The next door property, which was in the photo, had an addition in the back of the residence that was not assessed. It also had a partially finished basement that was also not assessed. Photos were provided of these two items from Zillow.
‍

SCAR DECISION:

This is the Hearing Officer's decision:

"I find the full market value of the property for assessment is $240,120.00. The credible and substantial evidence supports the partial reduction.

The best evidence of value is the Comparable Assessment Report - Residential of the Assessing Unit. Factors are similar to the subject property include the square feet of living area for all five properties. An average of the total average amounts for the five properties is taken to calculate $240,120.00, which is found as the full market value,

For the Final Roll Comparable Properties presented for the Petitioner, consideration is given to the full value amounts of assessments for properties on the same street and adjustments made. Less weight is given to evidence under which substantial adjustments are made, including amounts for the square feet of living area".

RESPONSE TO THE DECISION:

It is sad when more credibility is given for not showing what the adjustments are rather than for showing what they are. The assessor's "Comparable Assessment Report - Residential" showed no adjustments for the differences between the properties. Adjustments for the differences in square feet were not taken under consideration even though the New York State Department of Taxation and Finance and the Office of Real Property Tax Services recommend you do consider and make adjustments for the difference in square feet.

It was evident from the decision that all the information provided by the property owner was not considered and the decision was based solely on the total average of the five comparable properties listed on the assessor's Comparable Assessment Report. This decision would have taken about three minutes to make.

UPDATE

In an unrelated topic, I spoke with the Hearing Officer in a phone conversation. During this phone conversation (without being asked), the Hearing Officer stated that I was 100% correct in proving this grievance. The problem was he had never seen a grievance presented this way. It is the recommended way NYS and ORPTS suggests a property owner to grieve an assessment but yet he knew nothing about it. Unfortunately, it is the property owner who suffers. If more time had been taken in reading the information and proof provided, maybe a more accurate decision could have been made.

‍

SCAR HEARING #5

The SCAR Hearing was held in the 7th Judicial District and done by a telephone conference call on January 8th, 2025. It took this long because the original Hearing Officer that was assigned was in Long Island, NY. and did not schedule a hearing within a reasonable timeframe so I requested another Hearing Officer through the Supreme Courts. The Hearing Officer was the same as in SCAR Hearing #4.

The supporting documents for proof were much the same as they were for the previous four SCAR Hearings.

A spreadsheet of seven comparable properties.
The RP-524 Instruction form.
The pamphlet on "How to Estimate the Market Value of Your Home".
A copy of my Current Comparable Sales Analysis Adjustment Formula.The email from the Executive Director of the New York State Assessor's Association used in SCAR Hearing #3.

The spreadsheet proved the assessment on the subject property was excessive by $158,455.00.

The Town was represented by an attorney as the assessor was no longer with the Town. The only argument he had was the sale price of the property in 2022. He suggested the sale price is the best evidence of market value.

A property owner can overpay for a property without knowing it. Circumstances at the time of purchase can change after the purchase has been made. I stated that on the RP-524 form the requirements and proof of excessive assessment are proven by how the subject property compares to others on the same assessment roll. I also stated that the sale price is only one of many factors used in the computation of an assessment. Assessments are achieved by the recent sales of similar properties on the same assessment roll, not by the sale of the property alone. Doing this is a violation of the Welcome Neighbor or Welcome Stranger law. No one seemed to know what that was.

Three of the comparable properties, interior photos and documentation were shown as proof. The three comparable properties were very close in size, upkeep, condition and bathrooms but were assessed $204,900.00, $159,100.00 & $160,700.00 less than the subject property. Although I provided seven comparable properties, New York State suggests that three comparable properties are enough to prove excessive assessment. Here were three properties that clearly showed the subject property was excessively assessed.

SCAR DECISION:

Here is the Hearing Officer's decision:

"I find the full market value of the property for assessment is $368,600.00 and that no change is warranted. The presumption of validity of the valuation of the property has not been overcome by credible and substantial evidence of an excessive assessment.

The best of evidence of value is the purchase price of the property for $375,000.00 on 8/18/2022. The recent sale, less than one year before the valuation date, was under an arm's length transaction, between a seller under no compulsion to sell and a buyer under no compulsion to buy.”

The decision was submitted to the County Clerk within one day of the hearing. How much of an effort was put in to the reading and understanding of the proof that was submitted by the property owner?

As stated earlier, this just happened to be the same Hearing Officer as in SCAR Hearing #4, who admitted that after his decision was made, I was 100% correct in proving the assessment was correct in both hearings. Perhaps a little more time in reading what is before you in evidence and not making a quick decision would have been a better idea. His decision based solely on the purchase price was in violation of the Welcome Stranger Law. Did I mention he is also an attorney?

IN SUMMARY:

As you can see from these five SCAR Hearing cases, true justice for the property owner was not served in any Hearing. None of these grievances should have gone to Small Claims. I have argued grievances over the past few decades and have seen an ever-increasing need for better training of Assessors, Boards of Assessment Review and even Hearing Officers. The solution to this problem is simple but no one seems to want to fix it. I feel it comes back down to the "good ole boys club" who feel there is no need for change.

I put the main problem on the State of New York and the Office of Real Property Tax Services.

The State of New York highly recommends a property owner to use their published pamphlet on "How to Estimate the Market Value of Your Home" as a guide when grieving their property tax assessment. However, New York State does not train Assessors, Boards of Assessment Review members or Hearing Offices on how to understand the same process. It is two halves that can not come together.

The State of New York allows retired assessors to become Hearing Officers which is a conflict of interest. As stated in an email, the Executive Director of the New York State Assessor's Association's loyalty is with his membership. This loyalty is clearly shown by the actions of the Hearing Officer in SCAR Hearing #1, who is a retired assessor, by allowing the assessor great leniency and at the same time holding the property owner to the letter of the law. SCAR Hearings are to be informal, not a criminal hearing.

Not one of the Assessors, Boards of Assessment Review or SCAR Hearing officers knew what the requirements were for grieving an assessment according to the RP-524 form. All were obsessed with what the property owner paid for the property or for what the property owner could sell the property. When a property owner grieves an assessment by Unequal or Excessive assessment, it is how the subject property compares to similar properties on the same assessment roll after adjustments have been made for the differences between the subject property and the comparable properties. All of this is supported by the published pamphlet recommended by New York State.

In all five grievances, no credibility was given for adjustments made to make each property relatively the same. Comparable properties were not given credibility because they were not recent sales. The full market value of each residential property posted on the current final tax roll were established from the average of recent sales similar to that property by the local assessor. Not giving credibility to the comparable properties is implying that posted assessments on the final tax roll by the assessor are also not credible. The RP-524 instruction form states that the "market values and assessments of a sample of other properties on the same assessment roll" can be used. This would make them creditable and the decision of the Assessor, Board of Assessment Review and Hearing Officer incorrect.

New York State needs to have uniformity and a complete training process. Train the assessors, Boards of Assessment Review and Hearing Officers about the New York State recommended process property owners need to follow. Let them know that once the final tax roll is posted, it is no longer about what the property can sell for or what the property owner paid for the property, it is how the subject property assessment compares to other similar properties on the same tax roll. Property tax assessments are to be fair and equitable. When it is proven by the recommended process that unequal or excessive assessments exist, changes need to be made so the fairness and equitableness is restored.

I have been met with several "dead ends" in the fight for fairness and better training of assessors., Boards of Assessment Review and Hearing Officers. I came to the realization that in every step in the "chain of command" that I was dealing with an assessor, a former assessor or a retired assessor. The loyalty among its members is strong and no one will go against another member even when they know they are wrong.

A small group of individuals who have the same desire for justice as I do will be taking our fight to Albany and away from the "assessor's grip." Changes need to be made.

Any comments about this article can be made directly to me at w.leisenring.jr@gmail.com

Respectfully,

Warren Leisenring Jr.

‍