STATE OF NEW YORK SUPREME COURT. In the Matter of the Application for a Review Under Article 7 of the Real Property Tax Law of a Tax Aas semet Py VERIFIED PETITION KAATSKILL DEVELOPMENT HOLDINGS, LLC AND FORT SHANDAKEN ASSOCIATES, Index No. 11-1194 Petitioners, -against- RJI No. BOARD OF ASSESSORS FOR THE TOWN OF SHANDAKEN, THE BOARD OF ASSESSMENT REVIEW FOR THE TOWN OF SHANDAKEN, AND THE TOWN Ul 48, OF SHANDAKEN IN THE COUNTY OF ULSTER, NEW oe YORK, JUL_1 8 20 Respondents. NINA PO’ ULSTER CO ee eee TO THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK: The Petitioners above named, by their attorney, respectfully show and allege as follows: 1. At all times hereinafter mentioned, Petitioners were and still are the owners of three parcels of real property which comprise a portion of the “Emerson Resort & Spa’ in the Town of Shandaken, County of Ulster, State of New York, which are described on the relevant assessment roll as Parcel Nos. 25.10-1-5, 25,10-2-16 and 25.1-1-17 and are located at 146-152 Mt. Pleasant Rd, 5340 Route 28, and 5360-5374 Route 28, respectively. All parcels at issue are under common ownership and control and, moreover, are treated by Petitioners as a single economic unit (the “property’). 2. Respondents are the Board of Assessors (the Assessors") who set the municipality's assessments; the Board of Assessment Review (‘BAR’), which BAR is charged with the duty of reviewing the assessments of real property for the purpose oftaxation; and the Town of Shandaken, which is the assessing unit and the relevant municipal corporation or municipality (collectively, the “Respondents”). 3. Upon information and belief, during the month of May of this year, the Assessors prepared and completed a tentative assessment roll for all real property in the municipality for the current assessment roll year. Upon information and belief, the Assessors thereafter filed this tentative assessment roll with the Clerk so that it might be seen and examined. 4. Petitioners’ property was tentatively assessed on such assessment roll as follows: Parcel Nos. Land Total 25.10-1-5 $15,000 $100,000 25.10-2-16 $26,000 $2,244,000 25.1-1-17 $25,000 $400,000 5. On or before the municipality's grievance day, Petitioners protested the tentative assessment of its property by timely filing with Respondents written complaints for a review and correction of its assessments. The complaints were received by Respondents without objection and within the time fixed by law for the making and hearing of complaints, The complaints included statements under oath which specified the respects in which the property's assessments were: (a) unequal, in that they had been made at a higher proportionate valuation than the assessments of other real property on said municipal assessment roll made by the same officers for the current tax year (the instances in which inequality exists being the assessments of all real property made by the same officers in the municipality for the aforesaid currentassessment and tax year); (b) excessive, as the assessments are greater than the fair market values of the property; and (c) unlawful andior illegal as the Assessors included within the property's assessments non-assessable and/or non-real property items, in violation of the Real Property Tax Law and the New York State Constitution. Lastly, Petitioners’ complaints included a request for a reduction of the property's assessments and values. 6 Upon information and belief, Respondents thereafter made their final determinations on Petitioners’ complaints. In doing so, Respondents failed and refused to make such reductions in the assessments and values as requested in Petitioners’ complaints; thus, the assessments and values of the property remain unequal, excessive, illegal and/or unlawful. 7. On or about July 1 of this year, the municipality's assessment roll for the current year was finally completed and filed by Respondents. Upon information and belief, Respondents gave notice of the completion and filing of the assessment roll on or about the same date. 8. The assessments on Petitioners’ property on the assessment roll as finally completed and filed was $100,000 (25.10-1-5%), $2,244,000 (26.10-2-16) and $400,000 (25.1-1-17) (total assessed value). 9. Upon information and belief, the full market value of the property as claimed by Petitioners was, and is, not more than $200,000 (25.10-1-546), $4,600,000 (25.10-2-16) and $800,000 (25.1-1-17).10. _ Upon information and belief, the general ratio of assessed values of real property to full values of real property in the municipality for the current year was 25.5% at the time Petitioners fled their complaints. 14. Upon information and belief, the assessments upon the property of the Petitioners, and for which they will be required to pay taxes, is at a percentage substantially in excess of the above-stated ratio. 12. Upon information and belief, in order to be equal and proportionate with the assessments of other real properties in the municipality, the assessments on Petitioners’ property should be reduced to a maximum of $51,000 (25.10-1-5¢), $1,173,000 (25.10-2-16) and $204,000 (25.1-1-17) which is arrived at by applying the tentative equalization rate to the property's true full market value as claimed by Petitioners. 13, Petitioners are aggtieved and will be injured by the unequal, excessive and unlawful (illegal) assessments because Petitioners will be compelled to pay a larger portion of taxes than is their fair and proportionate share, and which they would not be required by law to pay if their assessments had been made correctly and properly. 14. Thirty (30) days have not elapsed since the completion of the ‘municipality's final assessment roll and the filing and posting of notice thereof, and no previous apy n to review Petitioners’ assessments for the year at issue have been made by Petitioners. 18. Attached is a letter authorizing The Law Office of Rebecca M. Speno, Esq. (Rebecca M. Speno, Esq.) to verify and file this Petition.WHEREFORE, Petitioners request that the Court (1) review the foregoing assessments of its property as provided in Article 7 of the Real Property Tax Law and reduce the assessments and values thereon as set forth in this Petition, so that they will be set at a valuation proportionate to the other assessments of other real property assessed on the same roll for the same tax year made by the same officers, and so that equality of assessment will result, together with all appropriate refunds and interest, and (2) grant to the Petitioners such other and further relief as to the Court may seem just and proper, including attorneys’ fees, disbursements and costs. Dated: July? , 2017 KAATSKILL DEVELOPMENT HOLDINGS, LLC AND FORT SHANDAKEN ASSOCIATES By: LAW OFFICE OF REBECCA M. SPENO, ESQ. Attorney for Petitioners 136 East Genesee Street, Suite 2 Baldwinsville, New York 13027 (818) 876-5297 / ms@rmspenolaw.comVERIFICATION STATE OF NEW YORK) COUNTY OF ONONDAGA) ss.: REBECCA M. SPENO, being duly swom, under penalty of perjury, deposes and states: | reside in Onondaga County within the State of New York. | am an attomey/sole practitioner who is the authorized agent and attorney for the Petitioners in this proceeding. | have read the foregoing VERIFIED PETITION and know the contents of it, and it is true to my knowledge except as to those matters stated to be alleged upon information and belief, and, as to those matters, | believe them to be true, | certify that all statements made in this VERIFIED PETITION are true and correct to the best of my knowledge and belief and | understand that the making of any wilful false statement of material fact herein will subject me to the provisions of the penal law relevant to the making and filing of false instruments. My knowledge and belief is based upon a review of Petitioners’ files, and reports received by me from Petitioners, Petitioners’ representatives and agents in reference to the matters at issue, said representatives and agents having knowledge of the matter at issue. | am authorized to verify this VERIFIED PETITION based upon the attached authorization from Petitioners; the office of the Petitioners is not within the same county as my office; and moreover, the allegations cape eal within my personal knowledge. TLOTT ic, State of chogtraton usec tow Yor usiied In Gnonaage sy Gemmission Expires tay oso Swom to before me this, -S_ day of July, 2017. Notary PublicRebeca M. Speno, Esq. Law Office of Rebecca M. Speno, Esq. 136 East Genesee Street, Suite 2 Baldwinsville, New York 13027 Re: Real Property Tax Assessment — 5340 Route 28 Town of Shandeken Onteora Central School District Uister County, NY Parcels # 25.10-2-16, 25.1-1-17 & 25.10-1-5 Dear Rebecca: This letter is to authorize the Law Office of Rebecca M. Speno, Esq. to act as agent and attomey on behalf of the undersigned with respect to the 2017 real property ‘assessment on property owned by them in the Town of Shandaken, Onterora Central School District and within Ulster County, State of New York. The Law Office of Rebecca Speno, Esq. is further authorized to verify and file any complaints, grievances, petitions or other documents that may be necessary to review and challenge the assessment of the undersigned’s property, and to include this letter in any such documents. Date, elaohi7 Sincerely, Fort Shandaken Associates ll, LP Kaatskill Development Holdings, LLC Spotted Dog Ventures, LLC Mion Ube, Print Name: Naomi lunthey Title: C ED.