May v. Traphagen

• Decision Date: 17 October 1893
• Citation: 34 N.E. 1064,139 N.Y. 478
• Parties: MAY v. TRAPHAGEN.
• Court: New York Court of Appeals Court of Appeals

139 N.Y. 478

34 N.E. 1064

MAY

v.TRAPHAGEN.

Court of Appeals of New York.

Oct. 17, 1893.

Appeal from city court of Brooklyn, general term.

Action by Moses May against Henry Traphagen to recover possession of a certain lot in the city of Brooklyn. From a judgment of the general term (19 N. Y. Supp. 679) affirming a judgment for plaintiff, defendant appeals. Reversed.

Gratz Nathan, for appellant.

Ira Leo Bamberger, for respondent.

GRAY, J.

The action was brought to recover possession of certain premises in the city of Brooklyn. The plaintiff's title comes through a sale made to him on February 23, 1887, by the registrar, for the nonpayment of the taxes for the years 1882, 1883, and 1884. The defendant was the owner of the property at the time of the tax sale, and, among other objections to the plaintiff's title, asserts that the taxes for the year 1883 were not legally assessed, and hence the sale was ineffectual. It was shown that the premises formed originally part of one plot of land, which, in 1882, was designated upon the ward map by the number ‘19’ in block 222. In February, 1883, the ward map was altered by the assessors by subdividing the plot No. 19 into two lots or parcels, which received new ward map numbers, the premises in question being designated as ‘No. 21,’ and the remaining lot being designated as ‘No. 20.’ In making the assessments for 1883, and the ‘annual record of real and personal property subject to taxation’ for that year, the taxing officers included in one valuation and assessment the two lots 20 and 21, instead of stating in the record the valuation of lot No. 21, here in question, and the amount of the assessment thereon; that is, the two lots together were set down in the assessment roll at a valuation of $4,500, and a gross tax was assessed of $107.30. The record so remained during the period when the books were kept open for examination and correction, and they so came into the collector's hands. On November 20, 1883, an apportionment was made in his office, and by erasures and entries in red ink separate statements of a valuation and of the assessed tax were made upon the books. The circumstances under which this apportionment was made are not disclosed exactly.

We think that there was a fundamental defect in the proceedings for assessment and taxation. The charter of the city (Laws 1873, c. 863, tit. 10,) prescribed the power and the duty of the assessors, and required that all assessments shall refer to the ward maps, which were to be made and to be kept by them. They were directed to follow the provisions of the general law, and that required a separate statement of the value of the land to be assessed. In the opinion at the general term it was held that the gross assessment of the two lots did not render it void, on the ground that there was a reference to the ward map; and, if the defendant had objected to...