New York Assembly Bill A10158

New York 2025-2026 Regular Session

• Introduced: 2/12/26
• Refer: 2/12/26
• Report Pass: 5/5/26
• Refer: 5/5/26
• Report Pass: 5/12/26
• Refer: 5/12/26
• Report Pass: 5/14/26
• Engrossed: 5/14/26
• Refer: 5/14/26
• Engrossed: 6/4/26

Caption

Extends limitations on the shift between classes of taxable property in the town of Clarkstown, county of Rockland

Summary

This bill amends the Real Property Tax Law to extend a local property tax limitation for the Town of Clarkstown in Rockland County. Specifically, it adds the 2026-2027 assessment roll to the list of years covered by an existing rule that caps the annual shift in current base proportions between classes of taxable property at no more than one percent over the prior year, so long as the town has adopted a local law, ordinance, or resolution authorizing the limitation. The measure applies only to an approved assessing unit in Clarkstown and preserves the requirement that, if the calculation would otherwise exceed the cap, the town’s legislative body must adjust the class proportions so they total one. The bill takes effect immediately and functions as a targeted extension of a local tax-assessment stabilization provision rather than a broad statewide tax policy change.

Impact

The bill amends section 1903 of the Real Property Tax Law to continue a special assessment rule for Clarkstown through the 2026-2027 assessment roll. Its practical effect is to limit how quickly the tax burden can shift between property classes in that town, affecting local property owners, assessors, and the municipal taxing structure. Because the change is narrowly tailored to one approved assessing unit, it does not alter statewide tax classification rules generally, but it does extend a local option that can influence residential, commercial, and other taxable property classes in Clarkstown.

Sentiment

The available legislative history suggests the bill was received favorably and moved without recorded opposition in committee. The Assembly Real Property Taxation Committee voted 9-0 to favorably refer the bill to Ways and Means, indicating broad support for continuing the local limitation. The bill later passed the Senate, which further suggests the measure was not especially controversial in the Legislature.

Contention

The main point of potential contention is the policy choice to preserve a special, town-specific cap on shifts between property classes, which may be viewed as protecting local taxpayers from sudden changes but also as limiting flexibility in how tax burdens are distributed. Any concern would likely come from parties affected by the allocation of property tax responsibility among classes, such as commercial or residential property owners, rather than from the bill’s mechanics themselves. No transcripted debate is provided, and the recorded vote shows no committee opposition.