Case ID: ny-st-rep_37/html/0645-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "Lawrence, J. Van Brunt, P. J.", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

The People ex rel. Isaac P. Martin v. Edward Gilon et al.
    
    
      (Supreme Court, General Term, First Department,
    
    
      Filed April 17, 1891.)
    
    1. Municipal corporations—Assessments.
    Section 920 of the consolidation act does not require that there shall be separate assessments for the improvements mentioned until the whole amount has been laid, but only gives the owner of property twenty years in which to pay such assessment in yearly instalments.
    2. Same—Certiorari.
    A certiorari to review an assessment brought before the board of revision has acted thereon is premature.
    Certiorari to review the proceedings of the board of assessors of the city of New York in levying an assessment upon the relator’s property, etc.
    
      James A. Deering, for relator; Wm. H. Clark and George L. Sterling, for resp’ts.
   Lawrence, J.

We do not think that the proper construction of § 920 of the consolidation act requires that there should be separate assessments for the improvements mentioned in that act until the whole amount of the assessment has been laid.

The true construction of that section is, that where an assessment has been levied upon property for any of the purposes specified in o said section, the party assessed shall be allowed to pay in yearly instalments five per cent of the whole amount assessed until the same has been wholly paid. In other words, the statute allows the owner of the property twenty years within which to make such payment

The construction contended for by the counsel for the relator would involve the making of twenty different assessments of five per cent each, which would not only materially increase the burthen imposed upon the individual, but also seriously complicate the proceedings before the assessors, without any corresponding benefit to the owner.

If this view is right, then it necessarily follows that the assessors had jurisdiction to make the assessment of which the relator complains.

The cases cited by the learned counsel for the relator proceed upon the ground that the assessors never acquired jurisdiction, and are therefore inapplicable.

Furthermore, as it is within the power of the board of revision and correction of assessment lists to review and correct all assessment lists, other than those made by commissioners appointed by a court of justice, the certiorari in this case was prematurely obtained. Consolidation Act, § 867. It must be assumed that the board will do its duty and correct any errors in the assessment list, and until they have passed upon the alleged errors of the assessors there is no final decision which we can review.

This point has been so recently decided by this court in the case of The People ex rel. Stevenson v. Gilon et al., that it is unnecessary to pursue it further. See 36 N. Y. State Rep., 1004.

The writ must therefore be dismissed, with costs.

Van Brunt, P. J.

Concur on last ground stated without expressing .any opinion as to the first.

Daniels, J., concurs.