People ex rel. Holmes Elec. Protective Co. v. Chambers
| Decision Date | 27 April 1956 |
| Parties | , 135 N.E.2d 56 PEOPLE ex rel. HOLMES ELECTRIC PROTECTIVE CO., Appellant, v. Harry B. CHAMBERS et al., as the Tax Commission of the City of New York, Respondents. |
| Court | New York Court of Appeals Court of Appeals |
Appeal from Supreme Court, Appellate Division, First Department, 285 App.Div. 886, 139 N.Y.S.2d 245.
The People of the State of New York, on the relation of corporation, brought consolidated proceeding to contest certain tax assessments against property of corporation for certain years.
The Supreme Court, Special Term, New York County, Part VII, Schreiber, J., 125 N.Y.S.2d 436, entered an order dismissing the proceeding and confirming the assessments and held that corporation's electric alarm system equipment by which messages in form of electrical impulses were transmitted between alarm system's central office and subscribers' locations, were 'telegraph lines, wires, poles and appurtenances' within meaning of the Tax Law, Consol.Laws, c. 60, § 2, subd. 6, defining, for tax purposes, real property as including 'all telegraph lines, wires, poles and appurtenances.'
The corporation appealed to the Appellate Division.
The Appellate Division, 285 App.Div. 886, 139 N.Y.S.2d 245, affirmed the order.
The Appellate Division, 285 App.Div. 1023, 139 N.Y.S.2d 906, denied motion for leave to appeal to the Court of Appeals.
The corporation appealed to the Court of Appeals, contending that the phrase 'all telegraph lines, wires, poles and appurtenances' does not include the corporation's switchboards and associated equipment in its central offices nor wiring system and devices on subscribers' premises which are the subject of assessments under review, and that corporation's property, which is the subject of the assessments under review, is excluded from real property taxation, under the provisions of Section 219-l and Section 3 of the Tax Law, and that therefore the assessments are illegal and void.
Bleakley, Platt, Gilchrist & Walker, New York City (Frank A. Fritz, New York City, and George Q. Slocum, New York City, of counsel), for relator.
Peter Campbell Brown, New York City (Morris Handel, New York City, and William A. Marks, New York City, of counsel), for respondents.
Order affirmed, with costs.
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
New York Mobile Homes Ass'n v. Steckel
...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......
-
Crossman Cadillac, Inc. v. Board of Assessors
...Holmes Elec. Protective Co. v. Chambers, 1 Misc.2d 990, 125 N.Y.S.2d 436, affd. 285 App.Div. 886, 139 N.Y.S.2d 245, affd. 1 N.Y.2d 760, 152 N.Y.S.2d 304, 135 N.E.2d 56). ...
-
Metropolitan Bank of Syracuse v. Department of Assessment of City of Syracuse
...Electric Protective Co. v. Chambers, 1 Misc.2d 990, 125 N.Y.S.2d 436, affd. 285 App.Div. 886, 139 N.Y.S.2d 245, affd. 1 N.Y.2d 760, 152 N.Y.S.2d 304, 135 N.E.2d 56; Matter of New York Telephone Company v. Ferris, 257 App.Div. 415, 13 N.Y.S.2d 359, affd. 282 N.Y. 667, 26 N.E.2d The teletype ......
-
Supreme Burglar Alarm Corp. v. Kaplan
...Holmes Elec. Protective Co. v. Chambers, 1 Misc.2d 990, 125 N.Y.S.2d 436, affd. 285 App.Div. 886, 139 N.Y.S.2d 245, affd. 1 N.Y.2d 760, 152 N.Y.S.2d 304, 135 N.E.2d 56). An entry on the premises results in a signal communication by wire that the premises have been breached 2 (People ex rel.......