Property Tax Appeal Board Decision 2004-27749-R-1 Sztejkowski

              (Continued on Next Page)
Based on the facts and exhibits presented, the Property Tax
Appeal Board hereby finds a reduction in part and no change in
part in the assessment of the property as established by the Cook
County Board of Review is warranted. The correct assessed
valuation of the property is:
Docket No. Parcel No. Land Imprv. Total
04-27749.001-R-1 13-22-112-024-0000 $4,566 $49,696 $54,262
05-25728.002-R-1 13-22-112-024-0000 $4,566 $49,696 $54,262
Subject only to the State multiplier as applicable.
PTAB/rfd5293
1 of 5
PROPERTY TAX APPEAL BOARD'S DECISION
APPELLANT: Gregory Sztejkowski
DOCKET NO.: 04-27749.001-R-1 and 05-25728.001-R-1
PARCEL NO.: 13-22-112-024-0000
The parties of record before the Property Tax Appeal Board are
Gregory Sztejkowski, the appellant, by attorney Melissa K.
Whitley of Marino & Associates in Chicago, and the Cook County
Board of Review.
The subject property consists of a 75-year-old, two-story, multi-family
dwelling of masonry construction with six full bathrooms
and a full-unfinished basement located in Jefferson Township,
Cook County. The appellant's petition suggests the subject
dwelling contains 3,798 square feet of living area, while the
board of review's documents indicate the subject contains 5,490
square feet.
The Property Tax Appeal Board finds that these appeals are within
the same assessment triennial, involve common issues of law and
fact and a consolidation of the appeals would not prejudice the
rights of the parties. Therefore, under the Official Rules of
the Property Tax Appeal Board, Section 1910.78, the Property Tax
Appeal Board consolidates the above appeals.
The appellant, through counsel, submitted evidence before the
Property Tax Appeal Board claiming unequal treatment in the
assessment process of the improvement as the basis of the appeal.
In support of this claim, the appellant submitted assessment data
and descriptive information on four properties suggested as
comparable to the subject. The appellant also submitted a one-page
brief, photographs of the subject and the suggested
comparables and a copy of the board of review's decision. Based
on the appellant's documents, the four suggested comparables