Respondents move for an order for leave to reargue and/or

renew motions that prompted the Court's May 26, 1995 Decision and

Order granting Petitioner's application for exemptions with

respect to a waste water treatment facility, air pollution

control facilities (units 2 and 3) and a boat coal loading dock

constructed at the Dunkirk Station.

This motion rests on the ground that the Court overlooked or

misapprehended the facts and law; that it did not have the

benefit of June 9, 1995 Fourth Department decision; did not have

before it new and additional evidence, and, did not apply ratio

to full market value.

Except for the ratio to full value omission, the Court did

not overlook the facts or law applicable to this case.

The facts were simple. Respondents assessed the Power Plant

at $195,975,000 and disallowed Petitioner's application for

exemptions on the ground that Petitioner had failed to provide

adequate documentation even though DEC had certified the property

as eligible for exemption.

The Court held that the Respondent did not have the right to

make its own determination whether the environmental facilities

were eligible, but, was limited to valuing the property both with

and without the new facilities; the exemption amount is the

difference in value. 5 Op Counsel SBEA NO. 110.

On this motion, Respondents argue that the coal boat dock,

air pollution control unit II and air pollution control unit III

were never added to the overall assessment because they were

"erroneously omitted from the 1994 assessment roll and thereby

excluded from taxation". The assessors have initiated "Pro-rated

Tax & Omission" procedures to include these items on the

assessment roll and scheduled administrative review for June 6,


The Court finds it remarkable that items of an assessed

value of nearly $7 million Dollars were "erroneously omitted"

regarding an assessment of property that has been headlined in

local media and vigorously contested in the Courts for over two

years, an omission that was not noted until after considerable

proceedings before the Board of Assessment, motions and cross-

motions made ......(date), and, after a month and a half elapsed

after oral argument.

If the exempt items had not been included on the 1994 final

assessment roll, then the grievance procedure and appeals, and

the motions to this Court regarding the assessments represented a

waste of considerable time and money.

The Court finds no justification or basis to grant the

motion to reargue and/or renew. The Coal Boat Dock is not a

substation. The granting of the other exemptions was proper,

except with regard to the omission of the ratio.

The Court hereby amends its DECISION and ORDER by adding

that the full market value of the exemption claimed should be

multiplied by the ratio that was applied by the assessors to

compute the 1994 assessment, viz:

Respondents motion to reargue and/or renew is denied,

without costs.