(Continued on Next Page)
Based on the facts and exhibits presented, the Property Tax
Appeal Board hereby finds no change 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:
LAND: $ 6,600
IMPR.: $ 24,511
TOTAL: $ 31,111
Subject only to the State multiplier as applicable.
1 of 4
PROPERTY TAX APPEAL BOARD'S DECISION
APPELLANT: Konstanty Dembowski
DOCKET NO.: 06-22086.001-R-1
PARCEL NO.: 09-13-318-020-0000
The parties of record before the Property Tax Appeal Board are
Konstanty Dembowski, the appellant, by attorney Julie Realmuto of
McCarthy & Duffy, Chicago, Illinois; and the Cook County Board of
The subject property is a 49-year old, multi-level style dwelling
of frame and masonry construction containing 1,251 square feet of
living area with a partial, finished basement.
The appellant’s appeal is based on unequal treatment in the
assessment process. The appellant submitted for consideration
seven comparable properties with four being described as multi-level
masonry or frame and masonry dwellings that are between 41
and 47 years old. Three comparables had no detailed description
provided other than classification code and size. The
comparables contain from 1,264 to 1,559 square feet of living
area and have improvement assessments ranging from $13.65 to
$16.96 per square foot. The subject’s improvement assessment is
$19.59 per square foot. Based on this evidence, the appellant
requested a reduction in the subject's improvement assessment.
The board of review submitted its "Board of Review Notes on
Appeal" wherein the subject's final assessment was disclosed.
The board of review presented three comparable properties
consisting of multi-level frame and masonry dwellings that are 48
years old. The dwellings contain 1,197 square feet of living
area and have improvement assessments of $20.15 or $21.87 per
square foot. Based on this evidence, the board of review
requested confirmation of the subject's assessment.
After reviewing the record and considering the evidence, the
Property Tax Appeal Board finds that it has jurisdiction over the