Hellerstein v. Assessor of Islip
37 N.Y.2d 1, 332 N.E.2d 279, 371 N.Y.S.2d 388 (1975)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
Under Real Property Tax Law Section 306, all real property in New York must be assessed at its full market value, rendering the widespread custom of fractional assessment illegal, though courts should defer relief for past assessments to avoid fiscal chaos.
Facts:
- Pauline Hellerstein, an owner of real property on Fire Island, claimed the entire assessment roll for the Town of Islip was void.
- The Town of Islip's assessments were admittedly based on a percentage of market value rather than the property's full value.
- Section 306 of the Real Property Tax Law explicitly states that "All real property in each assessing unit shall be assessed at the full value thereof."
- The custom of fractional assessments in New York State has been in practice for nearly 200 years, paralleling the statute's existence.
- The New York State Constitution provides that "[assessments shall in no case exceed full value."
Procedural Posture:
- Pauline Hellerstein instituted a proceeding pursuant to Article 7 of the Real Property Tax Law in the Supreme Court, Suffolk County, claiming the entire assessment roll for the Town of Islip was illegal.
- The Supreme Court, Suffolk County, dismissed Pauline Hellerstein's petition.
- Pauline Hellerstein appealed the dismissal to the Appellate Division, Second Department.
- The Appellate Division, Second Department, affirmed the Supreme Court's decision without opinion, with Justices Hopkins and Latham concurring on constraint of prior precedent.
- The case came to the New York Court of Appeals by leave of the Appellate Division.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does Section 306 of the Real Property Tax Law, which mandates assessment at "full value," prohibit the common practice of fractional assessments, thereby making such assessments illegal?
Opinions:
Majority - Wachtler, J.
Yes, Section 306 of the Real Property Tax Law prohibits fractional assessments, meaning all real property must be assessed at its full market value, and the practice of fractional assessment is illegal. The court found that the statutory requirement of "full value" means market value, a standard that has been historically understood and reaffirmed. Despite a nearly 200-year custom of fractional assessments, the court concluded that persistent violation cannot alter the clear meaning of a statute, especially when prior cases had condemned the practice. While prior decisions reducing assessments to a uniform rate when full value was impossible prioritized equality, they did not legitimize fractional assessments. Furthermore, the establishment of the State Equalization Board, which focuses on equality among taxing units, does not imply legislative sanction of fractional assessments within taxing units. Acknowledging the potential for "fiscal chaos" if all past assessments were invalidated, the court exercised equitable restraint, refusing to disturb settled assessment rolls, past taxes, or property rights. However, for future assessments, the court mandated compliance with Section 306, granting the Town of Islip a reasonable transition period, not extending beyond December 31, 1976, to implement full value assessments.
Dissenting - Jones, J.
No, the long-standing and widely accepted practice of fractional assessments should not be overturned by the judiciary, despite the literal wording of Section 306, because the Legislature has implicitly sanctioned the practice. Justice Jones argued that while fractional assessment cannot be squared with the literal command of Section 306, the practice has a history as venerable as the statute itself and has been followed without significant challenge until recently. He highlighted that prior judicial criticisms of the practice did not result in mandates for strict conformity, and the Supreme Court's affirmation in C. H. O. B. Assoc., even without opinion, validated lower court rejections of fractional assessment's illegality. The dissent emphasized that the Legislature's awareness of, and failure to interfere with, this Statewide practice, coupled with the enactment of legislation (such as the State Equalization Board) predicated on fractional assessments, indicates legislative acquiescence. Overturning such a deeply entrenched practice would lead to "utter confusion" and "disastrous" consequences for public finance, tax sales, and property titles. Justice Jones contended that the desirable goal of full value assessment, while attractive, is more appropriately a matter for legislative action, not judicial intervention, and questioned the legal authority and practical effectiveness of the majority's prospective-only determination.
Analysis:
This landmark decision reaffirmed the judiciary's role in enforcing clear statutory mandates, even in the face of widespread and long-standing non-compliance. It demonstrates the tension between legal literalism, historical custom, and the practical realities of public administration. By mandating prospective compliance while refusing to invalidate past assessments, the court sought to balance the rule of law with the need for stability in public finance and property rights. The ruling initiated a significant shift in property assessment practices across New York, compelling municipalities to undertake substantial revaluation efforts to achieve full market value assessments.
