Doughty v. Loomis
| Decision Date | 13 August 1959 |
| Citation | 189 N.Y.S.2d 413,9 A.D.2d 574 |
| Parties | Application for a review under Article 13 of the Tax Law of a Tax Assessment, by Herman DOUGHTY, Petitioner-Respondent, v. William H. LOOMIS, Henry Bottle and John Sullivan, Board of Assessors of the Town of Smithville, Chenango County, New York, Respondents-Appellants. |
| Court | New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division |
Gordon & Hill, Norwich, for appellants.
Edward S. Nelson, Norwich, for respondent.
Before BERGAN, J. P., and COON, GIBSON, HERLIHY and REYNOLDS, JJ.
MEMORANDUM DECISION.Appeal from an order of a Special Term, Supreme Court, Broome County.
The petitioner has title to a number of lots bordering on a resort lake. He has agreed with lessees of the lots that they may erect buildings to which they will retain title and which they may remove at the end of the term. Petitioner agreed to pay taxes on the land; the lessees agreed to pay taxes on the buildings. The Court at Special Term has made an order directing the town assessors to assess the land separately to petitioner and the buildings separately to the respective lessees. To justify such a mandatory order there must be a requirement by the statute compelling the assessors to make such a segregation. No such statutory mandate has been shown by the petitioner and we have not found one. Tax Law, § 9, provides that real property shall be assessed according to its condition 'and ownership' and the 'assessment shall be deemed as against the real property itself, and the property itself shall be holden and liable to sale for any tax levied upon it'. The description of property assessed is good if 'sufficiently accurate to identify the parcel or portion'. Although assessors are required to set down separately the 'value of' the land and improvement (section 21, subd. 3) review is limited to the 'total assessment.'
Since the assessment is against the land itself, and since the name of the owner is merely one part of identification, the validity of these assessments in which the actual title holder of the land is described as owner is not open to doubt. No requirement of any statute compels the assessors to trace and follow internal arrangements made between lessors and lessees as to who should pay the tax; and it would be an unfair burden to make them do this. Since the statute does not compel the segregation, mandamus should not be granted.
Order reversed on the law and the facts and motion denied with $50 costs to appellants...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
K. Capolino Design & Renovation, Ltd. v. Assessors of City of Yonkers
... ... Instead, the properties should have been identified as two separately assessed parcels [RPTL Section 502(2); In the Matter of Doughty v. Loomis, 9 A.D.2d 574, 189 N.Y.S.2d 413, aff'd 8 N.Y.2d 722, 201 N.Y.S.2d 100, 167 N.E.2d 643]--one taxable, one exempt [RPTL Section 502(5) ]. In ... ...
-
C. H. O. B. Associates Inc. v. Board of Assessors of Nassau County
... ... City of New York, 214 N.Y. 1, 108 N.E. 90; Doughty v. Loomis, 9 A.D.2d 574, 189 N.Y.S.2d 413), and to construe them as a mandate as to how the amount to be recorded should be determined is to ... ...
-
New York Mobile Homes Ass'n v. Steckel
... ... In Doughty v. Loomis, 9 A.D.2d 574, 575, 189 N.Y.S.2d 413, 415, affirmed 8 N.Y.2d 722, 201 N.Y.S.2d 100, a landlord sought to compel the town assessors to ... ...
-
Congregation Yetev Lev D'Satmar, Inc. v. Sullivan County
... ... 4; Matter of Doughty v. Loomis, 9 A.D.2d 574 , affd. 8 N.Y.2d 722 [201 N.Y.S.2d 100, 167 N.E.2d 643]; Crockford v. Zecher, 74 Misc.2d 1067, 1069 , affd. 45 A.D.2d 914 ; ... ...