New York State
Maple 2005: 2025 Village assessment
Maple 2005 LLC asks to reduce the 2025 Village assessed value of a Maple Street parcel from $84,920 to $8,492. Its petition also seeks repayment of allegedly unlawful taxes without stating a refund total.
- Case
- 60485/2025
- Court
- Supreme Court, Westchester County
- Record checked
Maple 2005 LLC v. Village of Croton-on-Hudson, its Assessor and Board of Assessment Review
The current position
Where it stands
The state electronic record checked October 17, 2026 displayed two processed filings and the label Pre-RJI. Case Detail records Village counsel from June 9, 2026. No valuation ruling or settlement paper appears in that displayed list, and no next court date is verified.
Follow later valuation papers, party positions and signed orders. Any actual tax repayment will be identified separately from the assessment requested in the petition.
What is the company asking for?
An assessed value of $8,492 in place of $84,920, a 90% requested reduction. The $76,428 difference is assessed value, not a calculated tax refund. The petition separately requests repayment of allegedly unlawful taxes and costs.
Petition and assessment schedule — filed April 4, 2025 · 2025 final Village assessment roll — Maple Street entry
Which property and year does this concern?
The 2025 final Village roll identifies Maple 2005 LLC and 38–48 Maple Street, classifies the parcel as a neighborhood shopping center and lists $84,920 as total and Village-taxable value. The petition identifies assessment year 2025 and Village tax year 2025/26.
Petition and assessment schedule — filed April 4, 2025 · 2025 final Village assessment roll — Maple Street entry
What are the parties’ roles?
Maple 2005 alleges an excessive, unequal and unlawful assessment. The petition names the Village and its assessor and review board in official roles. The court’s Case Detail lists counsel for both the company and Village. The service papers’ county and school recipients are not added respondents in that caption.
Petition and assessment schedule — filed April 4, 2025 · Service affirmations — filed April 7, 2025 · NYSCEF case details and representation history
What has the reviewed court record established?
It documents the petition, the signed account of service and counsel representation. Pre-RJI is a procedural label; it does not decide whether the requested valuation is right. No order fixing a new value appears in the two-row electronic list checked October 17, and no future court date is verified.
NYSCEF public electronic document list · NYSCEF case details and representation history · Service affirmations — filed April 7, 2025
The timeline
From the recordHow we got here
- Local background
Valuation date used by the 2025 Village roll
The 2025 final Village roll uses January 1, 2025 as its valuation and taxable-status date. The relevant entry lists $84,920 in total and Village-taxable assessed value. This is the roll’s valuation date, not its publication date.
Why this matters: Identifies the dated Village assessment under challenge, separately from later filing and tax-payment dates.
- Court filing
Petition filed seeking a lower assessed value
Maple 2005 LLC files its Article 7 petition under index 60485/2025, asking to reduce the assessment from $84,920 to $8,492 and seeking other stated relief. The petition was signed April 3.
Why this matters: Starts the court challenge. The requested figures are the company’s position, not a court valuation or tax award.
- Court filing
Signed service papers filed
The affirmations report April 7 delivery to the Village Clerk and mailing to county finance and the school superintendent; the document was filed that day.
Why this matters: Records how the petition was delivered. Those delivery statements do not decide whether its assessment claims are correct.
- Background
Village counsel representation recorded
The Case Detail representation history lists Joshua B. Subin for the Village with this date. It lists William E. Sulzer for Maple 2005 LLC from April 4, 2025.
Why this matters: Identifies counsel for each side. A lawyer’s representation date is separate from a merits filing or ruling.
- Newsroom check
Electronic docket checked
On October 17, the public electronic record listed the petition and service papers and displayed Pre-RJI status. No valuation order or settlement paper appeared in that list.
Why this matters: The displayed record supplies no order changing the assessment and no verified next court date. It does not establish what exists outside the electronic file.