New York Mobile Homes Ass'n v. Steckel

• Decision Date: 27 April 1961
• Citation: 9 N.Y.2d 533,86 A.L.R.2d 270,175 N.E.2d 151,215 N.Y.S.2d 487
• Parties: , 175 N.E.2d 151, 86 A.L.R.2d 270 NEW YORK MOBILE HOMES ASSOCIATION et al., Appellants, v. Thomas B. STECKEL, as Supervisor of the Town of Chili, Monroe County, New York, et al., Respondents.
• Court: New York Court of Appeals Court of Appeals

Page 487

215 N.Y.S.2d 487

9 N.Y.2d 533, 175 N.E.2d 151, 86

A.L.R.2d 270

NEW YORK MOBILE HOMES ASSOCIATION et al., Appellants, v. Thomas B. STECKEL, as Supervisor of the Town of Chili Monroe County, New York, et al., Respondents.

Court of Appeals of New York.

April 27, 1961.

William L. Clay, Rochester, for appellants.

Louis J. Lefkowitz, Atty. Gen. (Ruth Kessler Toch, Paxton Blair, Albany, and Ralph E. Wickins, Rochester, of counsel), for respondents.

FROESSEL, Judge.

This litigation stems from a statute, underlying which is an attempt to secure reimbursement from trailer dwellers for some share of the expense of providing them with police and fire protection, educational facilities and the various other services rendered by a municipality to persons residing within its confines. By making his more or less permanent home in a trailer, an individual could derive the benefit of all the services provided by the local government, while leaving the burden of paying for them upon his neighbors who lived in more conventional type dwellings. Although the inequities of this situation were readily apparent, as all the cases on the subject agree, there was seemingly no solution of the problem since the New York State tax against personal property had been repealed (L.1933, ch. 470; Tax Law, Consol.Laws, c. 60, § 3), and trailers, of course, were traditionally considered to be personalty.

In 1952, however, the Assessors of the Town of Vestal proceeded to tax trailers, which were then located in a local trailer park, as real property. The owners of the land were assessed for the value of the trailers, despite the fact that none of the trailers was owned by them. In a proceeding to review the assessment, the court held that it was improper to classify a trailer as real property and declared the assessment illegal (Stewart v. Carrington, 203 Misc. 543, 119 N.Y.S.2d 778). Although fully aware that the greatly expanding trailer population imposes 'severe financial burdens on the localities involved', the court noted that 'Legislation is the proper recourse to pursue' (203 Misc. at page 546, 119 N.Y.S.2d at page 781).

A little more than a year after this decision was rendered, the Legislature responded by the enactment of chapter 726 of the Laws of 1954, which added a new subdivision 6-a to section 2 of the Tax Law. ¹ It provided that the terms 'land', 'real estate', and 'real property', as used in the Tax Law, shall 'include all the forms of housing which are * * * commonly called * * * 'trailers'; except (1) transient trailers which have been located within the boundaries of a tax district for less than sixty days and (2) trailers which are for sale and which are not occupied. b. Trailers shall be assessed to the owners of the real property on which they are located.'

Although repealed since the institution of this litigation, the substance of subdivision 6-a is presently contained in section 102 (subd. 12, par. (g)) of the Real Property Tax Law, Consol.Laws, c. 50-a. The new section, however, no longer provides that the trailers 'shall be assessed to the owners of the real property on which they are located'. Rather, it now provides that 'The value of any trailer or mobile home shall be included in the assessment of the land on which it is located; provided, however, that if either the trailer or mobile home or the land on which it is located is entitled to any exemption * * *, such trailer or mobile home shall be separately assessed in the name of the owner thereof' (Real Property Tax Law, § 102, subd. 12, par. (g)).

The present statute is in effect a re-enactment (see Real Property Tax Law, § 1602, subd. 5, of former subdivision 6-a of section 2 of the Tax Law. While it now directs the assessment against the land instead of against the owner of the land, section 304 of the Real Property Tax Law (formerly Tax Law, § 9) reads now virtually as it did then, namely, that 'All assessments shall be against the real property itself'. We are therefore of the opinion that the Legislature intended us to read the original statute as it was re-enacted.

Plaintiffs, two membership corporations composed of owners of trailer parks, and an individual owner of a trailer park, sought a judgment declaring chapter 726 of the Laws of 1954 unconstitutional on the ground that it deprives them of their property without due process of law. The trial court (1) concluded that the plaintiffs lacked standing to attack the constitutionality of the statute (Tax Law, § 2, former subd. 6-a); (2) nevertheless, he passed upon the merits, declared the statute to be constitutional, and (3) dismissed the complaint. The Appellate Division found that the individual plaintiff had the requisite standing to attack the constitutionality of the statute and reversed so much of the judgment below as dismissed the complaint, while unanimously affirming the determination on the merits. It is from this determination that the appeal to us has been taken.

Plaintiffs on this appeal contend that (1) a trailer may not be properly classified as real property for tax purposes; (2) the statute is 'ambiguous and unconstitutional'; and (3) the statute is so indefinite as to be incapable of equitable and proper enforcement. The initial question presented for our determination is whether the Legislature has the power to classify trailers as real property for purposes of taxation. The answer under the authorities must be in the affirmative.

In People ex rel. Holmes Elec. Protective Co. v. Chambers, 1 N.Y.2d 760, 152 N.Y.S.2d 304, we held that the relator's switchboards and other wiring and equipment located in its own central office and on its subscribers' premises were properly assessed as taxable real property under the specific provision of subdivision 6 of section 2 of the Tax Law, which declared the terms 'land', 'real estate' and 'real property' to include, for tax purposes, 'all telegraph lines, wires, poles and appurtenances'.

Similarly, in New York Tel. Co. v. Ferris, 257 App.Div. 415, 147, 13 N.Y.S.2d 359, 361, affirmed 282 N.Y. 667, 26 N.E.2d 805 we affirmed a determination that telephone switchboards and other equipment were properly taxable as real property, despite a finding that such equipment was readily removable from the building in which it was housed without damage to either the property or the building. It was unnecessary for us to consider the charcter of the equipment at common law, since the statute designated this particular type of property as realty for tax purposes and, as the Appellate Division correctly noted, where the Tax Law has set up a standard of its own, it must govern (see, also, Wagner v. Mallory, 169 N.Y. 501, 62 N.E. 584; Matter of Hazelwood Oil Co., 195 App.Div. 23, 185 N.Y.S. 809).

Plaintiffs' attempt to distinguish these cases on the ground that they involved 'property attached to the freehold' is untenable. In each of them the property involved, absent the statutory classification, would normally be considered as personalty and could readily be removed from the premises. Moreover, while the trailers here are being utilized as residences, and thus remain stationary, they too are 'attached to the freehold'. Their water supply flows through a copper tube attached to the park outlet on the ground; they are connected to the park sewage system; gas, electricity and telephone connections are required to be made; and, although on wheels, many of the trailers have blocks set under them so that they will be level. Thus there is a rational basis for the legislative classification (see AEtna Life Ins. Co. v. Aird, 5 Cir., 108 F.2d 136, 125 A.L.R. 1436; Corning v. Town of Ontario, 204 Misc. 38, 40, 121 N.Y.S.2d 288, 291).

Since trailers may thus properly be classified as real property for purposes of taxation, we turn to the next question: May they be assessed against the real property on which they are located?

The statute, as we have seen above, seeks to include the value of the trailer in the assessment of the land and improvements thereon. In this respect the situation presented is no different from that involved in any case where a lessee erects a building or other improvement on the realty of his landlord. Where the fee is privately owned, the real property tax attaches to the combined interests of all the parties interested in the land and the improvements thereon (Fort Hamilton Manor, Inc., v. Boyland, 4 N.Y.2d 192, 198, 173 N.Y.S.2d 560, 564). Although the fee owner will, in such a situation, of course, be required to pay a higher tax than if the land were vacant, he "will also protect himself by some stipulation in the lease against the...