New York Assembly Bill A04391

New York 2025-2026 Regular Session

• Introduced: 2/4/25
• Refer: 2/4/25
• Report Pass: 5/20/25
• Refer: 5/20/25
• Report Pass: 5/29/25
• Refer: 5/29/25
• Report Pass: 6/4/25
• Engrossed: 6/4/25
• Refer: 6/4/25
• Engrossed: 6/5/25
• Enrolled: 7/29/25
• Chaptered: 7/29/25
• Passed: 7/29/25

Caption

Extends limitations on the shift between classes of taxable property in the town of Clarkstown, county of Rockland for an additional year.

Summary

A04391 amends the real property tax law to extend, for one additional assessment year, a special limitation on how much the tax share of one property class may increase relative to the other class in the Town of Clarkstown, Rockland County. The bill applies to an approved assessing unit in Clarkstown and adds the 2025-2026 assessment roll to the list of years covered by the existing cap. Under the measure, the current base proportion of any class of taxable property may not rise by more than 1 percent over the immediately preceding year’s adjusted proportion, so long as the town has adopted a local law, ordinance, or resolution authorizing the limitation. If the normal calculation would exceed that cap, the local legislative body must adjust the proportions so they still total 1. The bill takes effect immediately.

Impact

The bill makes a narrow, local amendment to the Real Property Tax Law affecting only the Town of Clarkstown in Rockland County. It extends an existing statutory mechanism that limits shifts in the distribution of taxable property classes, which can affect how the local tax burden is allocated between classes of property and can influence annual property tax bills for residents and businesses in the town.

Sentiment

The bill appears to have broad support and little opposition in the legislative process. It advanced unanimously or near-unanimously through committee stages, passed the Assembly floor with 126 yeas and 17 nays, and passed the Senate floor with 58 yeas and 1 nay. The voting pattern suggests general agreement that the extension is a routine local tax adjustment rather than a controversial statewide policy change.

Contention

The main point of contention is likely the policy choice to continue a local cap on shifts between property classes, which can be viewed as protecting certain taxpayers from larger increases while potentially constraining revenue distribution for the municipality. Any opposition appears limited, as reflected by the relatively small number of negative votes in floor action. The bill’s local and technical nature also suggests that disagreement, where present, is about the fairness or fiscal effects of the tax allocation formula rather than the bill’s structure.