New York State
Hospital’s 2022 property-assessment challenge
Hudson Valley Hospital Center challenges the Village’s 2022 assessment of 35 South Riverside Avenue. It asks to reduce the recorded assessment from $101,640 to $10,164; the public court record shows scheduling steps, with no decision on that request.
- Case
- 58878/2022
- Court
- New York Supreme Court, Westchester County
- Record checked
Hudson Valley Hospital Center v. The Board of Assessors and/or the Assessor of the Village of Croton-on-Hudson and the Board of Assessment Review
The current position
Assessment challenge pending
Active in the full public electronic docket checked October 16, 2026, with 14 documents. A court notice schedules an October 27 virtual conference with Court Attorney Referee Janine Flanagan. The case is assigned to Justice Diane M. Clerkin. No merits decision, settlement stipulation or amended appraisal/trial schedule appeared in those 14 originals.
Check for a changed notice or order before the October 27, 9:30 a.m. conference. The signed December 2025 order also sets December 2026 appraisal and pretrial deadlines and February 4–5, 2027 trial dates; no amendment to those dates was found in the displayed record. Confirm the schedule again before each step. Scheduled dates do not establish that an event occurred.
Next newsroom review:
Which property and year are involved?
The petition identifies 35 South Riverside Avenue, section 78.8, block 5, lot 61. It challenges the Village’s 2022 assessment; its authorization identifies tax year 2022/23. This case file covers that property and year, rather than treating every hospital-related assessment case as one lawsuit.
What do the dollar figures mean?
The petition lists $101,640 as both the original and confirmed assessed value and $10,164 as the requested assessment. The $91,476 difference is an assessment reduction being sought. It is not a stated tax-refund amount, a court award or a court finding of the property’s market price.
Who is challenging whom?
Hudson Valley Hospital Center brought the proceeding against the Village’s assessment authorities. The assessor and assessment-review board are named in their official roles; the petition does not describe a personal lawsuit brought by an assessor against Croton. The hospital alleges the assessment is excessive, unequal and otherwise unlawful. Those allegations have not been decided in the displayed record.
2022 petition, requested assessment and parcel schedule · Public electronic docket and case details
What happens next?
The latest notice sets a virtual conference with Court Attorney Referee Janine Flanagan for October 27 at 9:30 a.m. The case is assigned to Justice Diane M. Clerkin. A signed order also sets later appraisal, pretrial and trial dates. Court scheduling moves a case toward resolution; it does not approve the requested reduction or prove that a past conference took place.
Signed referee report and scheduling order · October notice setting next virtual conference
The timeline
From the recordHow we got here
- Court filing
Hospital files assessment challenge
The petition challenges the 2022 Village assessment of 35 South Riverside Avenue and requests a reduction from $101,640 to $10,164.
Why this matters: Identifies the local parcel, assessment year and requested change; the figures are the petitioner’s claim.
- Court filing
Proof of service filed
Two affidavits report delivery to a Village office assistant on April 12 and mailing to the county finance commissioner on April 14.
Why this matters: Records notice of the proceeding. Service papers do not decide the assessment dispute.
- Court filing
Service of income-and-expense statement reported
An affidavit says the verified income-and-expense statement was mailed to the Village assessor and Village attorney that day. The statement itself is not included in this filing.
Why this matters: Shows a step concerning property financial information without disclosing or independently establishing its contents.
- Court filing
Hospital files trial-calendar papers
The hospital files a note of issue requesting trial without a jury, a readiness certificate, a judicial-intervention request and proof of service.
Why this matters: Asks the court to move the case toward trial. These are filings, rather than proof that a trial occurred or an assessment was reduced.
- Court ruling
Judge confirms referee’s scheduling report
Justice Anne E. Minihan signs an order confirming Referee Renée S. Motola’s report. It sets a February 2026 settlement conference, December 2026 appraisal/pretrial steps and February 2027 trial dates.
Why this matters: Establishes the signed schedule. A later notice changes the February conference time and format; the later appraisal and trial dates are not amended in the reviewed papers.
- Court filing
Court changes February conference time and format
The court notices a February 10 virtual conference at 2:30 p.m. with Referee Renée Motola, replacing the order’s same-day 10 a.m. courtroom setting. The notice identifies Justice Diane M. Clerkin as assigned judge.
Why this matters: Keeps the two notices from being mistaken for two separate February conferences. The notice supplies a scheduled appearance, not its outcome.
- Court filing
Court issues April conference notice
The court schedules an April 7 virtual conference at 9:30 a.m. with Referee Janine Flanagan.
Why this matters: Shows a further scheduled case-management step. The notice does not record what happened at the conference.
- Court filing
Court issues May conference notice
The court schedules a May 26 virtual conference at 9:30 a.m. with Referee Janine Flanagan.
Why this matters: Continues the documented scheduling history without implying a settlement or ruling.
- Court filing
Court issues July conference notice
The court schedules a July 14 virtual conference at 9:30 a.m. with Referee Janine Flanagan.
Why this matters: Records a notice, rather than independently confirming the appearance or its result.
- Court filing
Court issues September conference notice
The court schedules a September 22 virtual conference at 9:30 a.m. with Referee Janine Flanagan.
Why this matters: The next displayed filing is another conference notice; no conference outcome is recorded here.
- Court filing
Latest notice sets October conference
The court schedules an October 27 virtual conference at 9:30 a.m. with Court Attorney Referee Janine Flanagan, in the matter assigned to Justice Diane M. Clerkin.
Why this matters: Supplies the next verified appearance date. It does not promise the assigned justice’s attendance or decide the assessment.