People ex rel. Simpson v. Wells
| Decision Date | 18 April 1905 |
| Citation | 181 N.Y. 252,73 N.E. 1025 |
| Parties | PEOPLE ex rel. SIMPSON v. WELLS et al., Tax Com'rs. |
| Court | New York Court of Appeals Court of Appeals |
OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE
Appeal from Supreme Court, Appellate Division, First Department.
Action by the people, on the relation of Thomas Simpson, against James L. Wells and others, commissioners of taxes and assessments of the city of New York. From an order of the Appellate Division (91 N. Y. Supp. 219,99 App. Div. 364) affirming an order of the Special Term quashing a writ of certiorari to review an assessment, relator appeals. Affirmed.
Arthur Neville, for appellant.
John J. Delany, Corp Counsel (George S. Coleman, of counsel), for respondents.
The relator is the lessee of three parcels of land in the city of New York, and is under covenant with the lessor to pay all taxes and assessments levied thereon during the term. On the second Monday of January, 1903, these parcelswere respectively assessed at the sums of $70,000, $35,000, and $32,000, which, on the 25th of March following, were increased by the respondents to $105,000, $40,000, and $35,000. The tax commissioners claim that they were authorized to make this increase by section 896 of the city charter, which is as follows: ‘The board of taxes and assessments may increase at any time before the first of April in each year, or may diminish at any time before the closing of the books of ‘annual record’ on the first day of April in each year, the assessed valuation of any real or personal estate of any individual or corporation, as in its judgment may be just or necessary for the equalization of taxation; but it shall not increase such valuations of the property of any individual or corporation after said books are opened for correction and review, except upon notice given to the individual or corporation affected by such increase at least ten days before the fifteenth day of April in each year.' Laws 1901, p. 381, c. 466. The relator does not claim that the assessment is unequal or unjust, or that he or his lessor had no notice of the increase when it was proposed, or that they had no opportunity to be heard before it was made permanent. He insists, however, that said section is unconstitutional, and hence that notice to him, even if given in time for a hearing, is immaterial, because no authority to increase the assessment can be conferred by a statute passed in violation of the Constitution. He founds his contention not upon what was done in this case, but upon what he claims might be done in any case. His argument, in substance, is that, according to the statute, the books of annual record are opened for examination on the second Monday of January, and closed on the 1st of April; that said section authorizes an increase at any time after the books are opened and before they are closed, but forbids an increase without notice to the person interested at least 10 days before the 15th of April; that a notice served after the 1st and before the 15th of April would be practically no notice, because too late for a hearing before the books are closed; and that an increase of valuation without notice would deprive the taxpayer of property without due process of law. He also claims that the statute is defective because it does not provide for a hearing as matter of right, and that a hearing by favor only does not satisfy the Constitution.
Section 896 should be read in connection with other sections relating to the method of assessment, and especially sections 892 and 895. Section 892 provides that assessment books shall be kept, in which shall be entered in detail the assessed valuations of real and personal estate within the limits of the several boroughs of the city of New York; that they shall be open for public inspection, examination, and correction from the second Monday in January until the 1st day of April in each year; and that on the last-mentioned day they shall be closed to enable the board of taxes and assessments to prepare assessment rolls of the several boroughs for delivery to the board of aldermen. Previous to and during the time the books are open for inspection, the board...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State v. Hudson County News Co.
...if by any reasonable construction it can be given a meaning in harmony with the fundamental law.' People ex rel. Simpson v. Wells, 181 N.Y. 252, 257, 73 N.E. 1025, 1026; Kauffman & Sons Saddlery Co. v. Miller, 298 N.Y. 38, 44, 80 N.E.2d 322, 324. A conviction, therefore, cannot be upheld wi......
-
Brown-Forman Distillers Corp. v. State Liquor Authority
...214 N.Y.S.2d 363, 174 N.E.2d 470; Dollar Co. v. Canadian Car & Foundry Co., 220 N.Y. 270, 275-278, 115 N.E. 711; People ex rel. Simpson v. Wells, 181 N.Y. 252, 257, 73 N.E. 1025.) Moreover, this court has on occasion replaced its own earlier construction of a statute with another deemed mor......
-
People v. Dietze
...312, 317, 52 N.E.2d 881; see also, People v. Finkelstein, 9 N.Y.2d 342, 345, 214 N.Y.S.2d 363, 174 N.E.2d 470; People ex rel. Simpson v. Wells, 181 N.Y. 252, 257, 73 N.E. 1025; Wong Yang Sung v. McGrath, 339 U.S. 33, 50, 70 S.Ct. 445, 454, 94 L.Ed. 616; Japanese Immigrant Case [Yamataya v. ......
-
People v. Biltsted, AP-9
...if by any reasonable construction, it can be given a meaning in harmony with the fundamental law" (People ex rel. Simpson v. Wells, 181 N.Y. 252, 257, 73 N.E. 1025; People v. Liberta, 64 N.Y.2d 152, 485 N.Y.S.2d 207, 474 N.E.2d 567 cert. denied, 471 U.S. 1020, 105 S.Ct. 2029, 85 L.Ed.2d 310......