People ex rel. Prudential Ins. Co. v. Lilly

• Decision Date: 20 July 1943
• Citation: 291 N.Y. 600,50 N.E.2d 1011
• Parties: PEOPLE ex rel. PRUDENTIAL INSURANCE CO., Respondent, v. Joseph LILLY et al., Appellants.
• Court: New York Court of Appeals Court of Appeals

291 N.Y. 600

50 N.E.2d 1011

PEOPLE ex rel. PRUDENTIAL INSURANCE CO., Respondent,

v.Joseph LILLY et al., Appellants.

Court of Appeals of New York.

July 20, 1943.

Appeal from Supreme Court, Appellate Division, First Department, 265 App.Div. 933, 39 N.Y.S.2d 414.

Proceeding by the People of the State of New York on the relation of the Prudential Insurance Company of America against Joseph Lilly and others constituting the Tax Commission of the City of New York and Joseph Lilly, as President of such Tax Commission. The proceeding was a consolidation of three proceedings, one of which reviewed the assessment for taxation for the second half of 1939 and first half of 1940, the second of which reviewed the assessment for the second half of 1940 and the first half of 1941, and the third of which reviewed the assessment for the second half of 1941 and the first half of 1942. The property involved is a 20 story store and office building ‘in the heart of the financial district’ of the City of New York.

The values as claimed by the relator were, for the year 1939-40, $4,600,000, for the year 1940-41, $4,600,000 and for the year 1941-42, $3,200,00. The values found by the Special Term were, for the year 1939-40, $5,395,000, for the year 1940-41, $5,070,000, and for the year 1941-42, $4,802,600. The Appellate Division, 265 App.Div. 933, 39 N.Y.S.2d 414, found the values for the year 1939-40 at $4,625,000, for the year 1940-41 at $4,600,000 and for the year 1941-42 at $4,338,750.

The Tax Commission on appeal from the orders contended that the Appellate Division in reviewing a finding of fact on the issue of value may reverse the finding only when it is against the weight of the evidence but that it may not reverse the finding merely because it concludes that had it been the trier of the facts in the first instance it would have preferred its own to the trial court's figures. The Commission claimed that the findings made by the Special Term were supported by the evidence and should not have been reduced by the Appellate Division.

Affirmed.

Robert H. Schaffer, of New York City (Arthur A. Segall, Arthur H. Goldberg, and Edmund B. Hennefeld, all of New York City, of counsel), for appellants.

Philip Sheridan McNally, of New York City, for respondent.

PER CURIAM.

Order affirmed with costs.

All concur except THACHER, J., taking no part.