Steven Longo

The appellant sought to withdraw its property assessment appeals after the Municipal Property Assessment Corporation (MPAC) filed a Statement of Response seeking a higher assessment based on the property's development potential.

The appellant argued that MPAC's Statement of Response lacked particularity and failed to comply with Rule 38(7), and that the appellant would be prejudiced if not allowed to withdraw.

The Assessment Review Board dismissed the motion, finding that MPAC's pleading provided a clear evidentiary pathway and complied with the rules.

The Board also held that the appellant would not be prejudiced by proceeding to a hearing on the merits, as MPAC is entitled under the Assessment Act to seek a higher assessment during an appeal.

The appellant property owner sought to withdraw its assessment appeals.

MPAC objected and brought a motion to reinstate the appeals, arguing that it had given notice of its intention to request a higher assessment in its Statement of Response, which under Rule 72 precludes withdrawal as of right.

The Assessment Review Board found that MPAC's Statement of Response constituted valid notice of an intention to seek a higher assessment.

The Board granted MPAC's motion and reinstated the appeals, noting the appellant could still bring a formal motion for permission to withdraw.

At the outset of the hearing, MPAC brought a motion to disqualify the appellant's proposed expert witness on the basis that the witness had previously acted as the appellant's representative in the same appeals.

The Assessment Review Board found that the witness had demonstrated partiality through his prior representation and could not meet the requirements of an impartial expert.

The Board disqualified the witness and granted an adjournment on consent to allow the appellant to retain a new expert.