ELR Citation: ELR 21071
No(s). 18544/90 (N.Y. Sup. Ct. Mar 27, 1991)

The court holds that a real estate developer's strategic lawsuit against public participation (SLAPP suit) challenging a local property tax exemption for a nonprofit nature conservancy's administrative center constitutes retaliatory and frivolous conduct, and the developer must compensate the conservancy and a local tax assessor for expenses and attorney fees incurred in defending the suit. The court first holds that the developer does not have standing to challenge a local tax assessor's decision to grant the conservancy a real estate tax exemption for the four-acre parcel where the preserves's administrative center stands. The developer failed to show either a broad conspiracy by the assessor to abuse the administrative process by granting wholesale tax exemptions to a certain class of applicants, or that any personal tax benefit would accrue if the property was returned to the tax rolls. The court observed that even if the developer had standing, it failed to show that the assessor's action in granting the exemption was or capricious. Use of the executive director's home, located across from the preserve, for purposes integral and necessary to the operation of the preserve was a rational basis for the tax exemption, and the benefit that accrues to the executive director from the housing does not constitute pecuniary profit that would defeat the tax exemption. The court next holds that the developer commenced the proceeding primarily to harass or maliciously injure the conservancy, and the suit is an abuse of the right to petition for judicial review. The developer is not a resident of the town who would have a personal, long-term concern for the town's tax base. Instead, the developer's interest in contesting the tax exemption is tied only to a short-term monetary return. Thus, the court concludes that the developer's motivation is to seek retribution against the conservancy for opposing development plans for the area surrounding the preserve, and to chill the conservancy's future exercise of its First Amendment rights. Finally, the court holds that an award for expenses and attorney fees incurred in defending the suit is appropriate, both to compensate the conservancy and to deter future abuse of the judicial system.

Counsel was unavailable at press date.