Moller v. O'Donnel
| Decision Date | 24 October 1905 |
| Citation | 183 N.Y. 9,75 N.E. 540 |
| Parties | PEOPLE ex rel. MOLLER et al. v. O'DONNEL et al., Commissioners of Taxes, etc. |
| 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 Emma L. Moller and others, executors of Joseph H. Godwin, against Frank A. O'Donnel and others, commissioners of taxes and assessments of the city of New York. From a judgment of the Appellate Division (94 N. Y. Supp. 884,106 App. Div. 526) reversing an order of the Special Term denying a motion to quash a writ of certiorari, plaintiff appealed. Reversed.
Bartlett and Haight, JJ., dissenting in part.Howard R. Bayne and Arthur M. Silber, for appellants.
John J. Delany, Corp. Counsel (George S. Coleman and E. Crosby Kindleberger, of counsel), for respondents.
The relators, executors and trustees of the will of Joseph H. Godwin, deceased, resided in the city of New York, the relator Moller in the borough of the Bronx and the relator Smith in the borough of Manhattan. In 1904 the relator Smith, as such executor and trustee, was assessed for personalty at the sum of $150,000, the tax on which he paid. The same year both relators, as executors and trustees, were assessed in the borough of the Bronx at the sum of $150,000. The relators thereupon obtained a writ of certiorari for the purpose of canceling or reducing the assessment made upon them in the Bronx. A motion made to set aside the writ on the ground that the assessment was regular and valid was denied by the Special Term. The order of the Special Term was reversed by the Appellate Division and the motion to set aside the writ granted.
While it may be true that under the definition of a ‘tax district’ found in section 2 of the tax law (Laws 1896, p. 796, c. 908) the whole city constitutes but a single district, because the assessments in the several boroughs by the deputy tax commissioners are made subject to the direction and supervision of the board of taxes and assessments, it is nevertheless plain that under the provisions of the charter of the city (chapter 17 [Laws 1901, p. 376, c. 466]) a valid assessment for personalty, against a resident other than a corporation, possibly, can be made only in the borough in which the taxpayer resides. Section 892 of the charter provides that in each borough office of the department there shall be entered in ‘the annual record of the assessed valuation of real and personal estate of the borough’ the assessed valuation of the property within the limits of the borough, which book shall be open for public inspection, examination, and correction. Previous to the time for opening the said books for inspection, the fact that the books are to be opened must be advertised in the City Record and in one or more newspapers published in the borough. Section 894 provides that there shall be entered in each borough the names of the persons or corporations subject to taxation, and that, if at any time prior to the 1st of May in any year it shall appear to the tax commissioners that a person assessed for taxation on personal estate on the books or rolls of one borough should have been assessed therefor on the books or rolls of another borough, they shall forthwith cause the assessment to be canceled and a new assessment to be made in the proper borough, and within five days thereafter cause written notice of the new assessment to be mailed to the taxpayer at his residence or business address. Ever since the case of Stuart v. Palmer, 74 N. Y. 183, 30 Am. Rep. 289, it has been the settled law of this state that for the imposition of a valid tax it is necessary that the taxpayer have notice of his assessment, in order that, if aggrieved, he may have a hearing and an opportunity to obtain relief. In the case of the ordinary annual taxes the taxpayer must take notice of the provisions of the statute prescribing the time when the assessment books are open for inspection. He must examine the books and discover for himself whether he has been erroneously or...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
People ex rel. Bridgeport Sav. Bank v. Feitner
...N. Y. 517, 26 N. E. 1104;Matter of Douglas v. Board of Supervisors Westchester Co., 172 N. Y. 314,65 N. E. 162;People ex rel. Moller v. O'Donnel, 183 N. Y. 9, 12,75 N. E. 540. A statute, however, will not be adjudged to violate the Constitution if by any reasonable construction it can be gi......
- Koehler v. New York Steam Co.
-
MacGregor v. Johnson-Cowdin-Emmerich, Inc.
...was a resident, since its principal place of business was in the city of New York, where the mill also was; but in People ex rel. Moller v. O'Donnel, 183 N. Y. 9, 75 N. E. 540, the Court of Appeals construed the phrase, "tax district," as meaning a "borough" of New York City in a case which......