Reader’s Forum Jarndyce v. Jarndyce

– By John Carey, Bertrand deFrondeville, Arthur Jacobs and John Sherwin –

For years the taxpayers of Rye have been drained of money to finance seemingly endless litigation over the taxability of property belonging to The Osborn. We are reliably informed that at least $15 million dollars has been lavished on this crusade. “Pointless” is fair comment, since in the 1970s litigation was avoided entirely through a PILOT, an agreed-upon Osborn payment in lieu of taxes.

The burden of these huge costs has fallen especially hard on those Rye taxpayers who reside in the Rye City School District (RCSD) rather than in the Rye Neck School District. This means most of Rye except for Greenhaven.

Those who enjoy Dickens are bound to be reminded of the endless litigation in his imaginary but all too realistic case of Jarndyce v. Jarndyce, in which the property fought over was nearly drained by fees and costs.

At the present time, there is a short-lived window of opportunity for negotiation leading to settlement. But the three parties should meet and talk, not just stand by and watch the expenses mount up. And we strongly urge that the parties meet, at least initially, with just the CEOs and CFOs.

After all, when warring countries have exhausted themselves, they do not send their generals to negotiate; they send diplomats and leaders who are used to the give-and-take of bargaining more than to fighting.

In 2007 the New York State Supreme Court in White Plains issued two rulings setting assessments for Osborn property for years up to and including 2003. Those assessments were legally binding on the City Assessor for 2004, 2005 and 2006. But in 2007 and 2008, the assessments were raised to earlier levels, on the theory that the Court’s rulings were not binding on the City until all appeals had run their course.

That argument works both ways: the rulings ARE final, unless stayed, until overturned by a higher court. If need be, additional tax revenue attributable to the higher assessments could be placed in escrow pending the end of the litigation.
The current appeals from the 2007 rulings are awaiting the filing of certain lawyers’ briefs, probably followed by oral arguments in the appeals court in Brooklyn, then followed by that court’s deliberations leading to reversal or approval of the 2007 tax rulings. Then there might be further appeals, to the highest court in New York State, the Court of Appeals in Albany. That would entail further drains for the taxpayers of Rye.

Now the time is ripe to put an end to the hemorrhaging of the resources of the City, of RCSD and of The Osborn (and its residents, who are required to pay their proportionate share of Osborn’s City and RCSD tax bills without the benefit of tax deductions or war veterans’ benefits).

Here is what we, as Rye taxpayers, urge as strongly as we can: let each of the three parties drop their appeals to the court in Brooklyn and comply with the 2007 rulings of Judge Dickerson. And let the parties explicitly commit not to violate the legal prohibition against selective reassessment.

Let your decision be made with the well-being of the taxpayers in mind, in preference to what litigious persons might wish to see continue.