Case ID: ny_231/html/0558-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

The Valley Farms Company of Yonkers, Appellant, v. City of Yonkers, Defendant, and County of Westchester, Respondent.
    
      Tax — action to cancel assessments — constitutionality of chapter 646 of-Laws of 1917 prescribing method of collection of tax to defray cost ctf construction of Bronx Valley sewer.
    
    
      Valley Farms Co. of Yonkers v. City of Yonkers, 193 App. Div. 433, affirmed.
    (Argued April 25, 1921;
    decided May 10, 1921.)
    Appeal from a judgment, entered February 8, 1921, upon an order of the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court in the second judicial department, which reversed an interlocutory judgment of Special Term overruling a demurrer to the complaint, sustained such demurrer and directed a dismissal of the complaint.
    The action is in equity for the purpose of having annulled and canceled of record taxes levied upon ' plaintiff’s property in the city of Yonkers, for the purpose of paying the bonds and interest due thereon issued to pay for the construction of the Bronx Valley sewer and also for the maintenance of the sewer. Plaintiff claims that chapter 646 of the Laws of 1917, which defines in detail the method and manner for the collection of the tax and the maintenance of the sewer, is violative of the State and Federal Constitutions as to that provision which fixes and determines the benefited area, and defines the method of assessment; that provision which directs the assessing of plaintiff’s property equally with all other property in the area for the whole cost of the trunk part and outlet part of the sewer when it is claimed that the said property has no use whatsoever for the trunk part of said sewer and use for only a portion of the outlet part of said sewer and whatever use it has for the outlet part of said sewer is contingent upon the construction of a connecting sewer at a cost of $300,000; that provision which provides for value as the rule or basis of the assessment; that provision which authorizes the inclusion of items of maintenance in the assessment, which it is claimed should not be included, and that provision by which the benefited area is fixed and which thereby supersedes the right of the original commission, to which was delegated the power to fix said area.
    
      Robert C. Beatty and Roger H. Anderson for appellant.
    
      William A. Davidson and Charles. M. Carter for respondent.
   Judgment affirmed, with costs; no opinion.

Concur: His cock, Ch. J., Chase, Hogan, Cardozo, McLaughlin, Crane -and Andrews, JJ.