People ex rel. Hagy v. Lewis

Decision Date11 April 1939
PartiesPEOPLE ex rel. HAGY v. LEWIS, Com'r of Assessments, et al.
CourtNew York Court of Appeals Court of Appeals

OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE

Certiorari proceeding under article 13, section 290 et seq., of the Tax Law, by the People of the State of New York, on the relation of Jessie Chalmers Hagy, individually, and as executrix of the estate of Robert M. Chalmers, deceased, relator, against Richard J. Lewis, as Commissioner of Assessments of the City of Albany, New York, and others, to review an assessment on relator's realty for the year 1937. From an order of the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court, 255 App.Div. 916, 8 N.Y.S.2d 6, entered November 23, 1938, affirming an order of the Special Term, confirming the report of the referee in reducing the assessment made by the Commissioner of Assessments, the defendants appeal.

Affirmed.

RIPPEY, J., dissenting. Appeal from Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Third department.

Joseph J. Casey, Corp. Counsel, of Albany, for appellants.

Ernest B. Morris, of Albany, for respondent.

LOUGHRAN, Judge.

This is a certiorari proceeding brought under article 13, section 290 et seq., of the Tax Law (Consol.Laws, ch. 60), to review the assessment of 37 North Pearl street in the city of Albany for the purposes of taxation for the year 1937. The premises were assessed at $312,000.

It was alleged by the relator that the assessment was both erroneous by reason of overvaluation and unequal in that it had been made at a higher proportionate valuation than the assessment of other property on the same roll by the same officers. See Tax Law, § 290. The issue as to overvaluation has been settled by the finding of the courts below that the premises had a full value of $160,000. Our jurisdiction is invoked only in respect of the issue of inequality.

Section 293 of the Tax Law empowers the court to correct an unequal assessment so as to ‘make it conform to the valuations and assessments of other property upon the same roll and secure equality of assessment.’ It also provides: ‘Upon the hearing the parties to the proceeding may mutually agree on parcels of real estate to be valued * * *. But in case the parties fail to agree on a selection of parcels to be valued * * * then upon application of either party the court or referee shall * * * select the parcels that shall be valued without reference to their assessed values, and both parties shall be limited in their proof on the trial to * * * the parcels so selected, except that evidence as to actual sales of real property within the tax district that occurred during the year in which the assessment under review was made may be given by either party.’

Conformably to this provision, the relator and the city each submitted a list of parcels for valuation, and the referee picked out six parcels from either list. The assessed valuation and the found full value of each of these twelve parcels were as follows:

+---------------------------------------------+
                ¦                      ¦Assessment¦Full Value ¦
                +----------------------+----------+-----------¦
                ¦341 South Pearl street¦$ 2,000   ¦$ 3,000.00 ¦
                +----------------------+----------+-----------¦
                ¦600 South Pearl street¦2,000     ¦6,000.00   ¦
                +----------------------+----------+-----------¦
                ¦120 Hudson avenue     ¦20,000    ¦35,000.00  ¦
                +----------------------+----------+-----------¦
                ¦218 Western avenue    ¦26,000    ¦60,000.00  ¦
                +----------------------+----------+-----------¦
                ¦178 Morton avenue     ¦6,500     ¦9,000.00   ¦
                +----------------------+----------+-----------¦
                ¦210 Loudonville road  ¦10,000    ¦25,000.00  ¦
                +----------------------+----------+-----------¦
                ¦41 Catherine street   ¦2,500     ¦2,769.30   ¦
                +----------------------+----------+-----------¦
                ¦453 Myrtle avenue     ¦10,100    ¦8,790.00   ¦
                +----------------------+----------+-----------¦
                ¦9 Lawnridge avenue    ¦10,000    ¦9,000.00   ¦
                +----------------------+----------+-----------¦
                ¦83 Columbia street    ¦8,000     ¦6,988.00   ¦
                +----------------------+----------+-----------¦
                ¦485 Myrtle avenue     ¦10,000    ¦8,890.00   ¦
...

To continue reading

Request your trial
21 cases
  • Slewett & Farber v. Board of Assessors
    • United States
    • New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division
    • April 8, 1981
    ...full value to obtain the actual overall ratio of assessed value to true market value in the taxing district (see People ex rel. Hagy v. Lewis, 280 N.Y. 184, 20 N.E.2d 386). Disagreement as to which parcels were to be used was resolved by the trial court's selection of an equal number from e......
  • Slewett & Farber v. Board of Assessors
    • United States
    • New York Supreme Court
    • December 29, 1978
    ...valuation of all categories of property in the taxing district with the aggregate of their full values (People ex rel. Hagy v. Lewis, 280 N.Y. 184, 187-188, 20 N.E.2d 386, 388; 860 Executive Towers, Inc. v. Board of Assessors, supra ). Inequality was established when the subject parcel was ......
  • Lerner Shops of Conn., Inc. v. Town of Waterbury
    • United States
    • Connecticut Supreme Court
    • July 25, 1963
    ...attainment of the rough equality which is all that has heretofore been possible under any system of taxation.' People ex rel. Hagy v. Lewis, 280 N.Y. 184, 188, 20 N.E.2d 386, 387; see In re Kents, supra, 34 N.J. 31, 166 A.2d In this case, Cohen offered evidence of the average ratio of asses......
  • Staten Island Edison Corp. v. Moore
    • United States
    • New York Supreme Court
    • December 19, 1955
    ...value of real property in a particular community for a particular year. As the Court of Appeals indicated in People ex rel. Hagy v. Lewis, 280 N.Y. 184, 188, 20 N.E.2d 386, 387, the law merely requires that the proof offered be adequate for the 'practical attainment of the rough equality wh......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT