Case ID: misc_53/html/0334-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "Blanchard, J.", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

The People ex rel. Lispenard Stewart, Individually, Etc., et al. v. Thomas L. Feitner et al. (2 proceedings). The People ex rel. David W. Bishop v. Thomas L. Feitner et al. The People ex rel. Joseph Pulitzer v. Thomas L. Feitner et al. (3 proceedings). The People ex rel. John Wanamaker v. Thomas L. Feitner et al. (3 proceedings). The People ex rel. Peter Lorillard et al. v. Thomas L. Feitner et al. The People ex rel. R. M. Gallaway v. Thomas L. Feitner et al. (2 proceedings). The People ex rel. Florence B. O. Bishop et al., as Executors, v. Thomas L. Feitner et al. The People ex rel. Ernest E. Lorillard et al., as Trustees, v. Thomas L. Feitner et al. The People ex rel. William Rhinelander, as Executor, et al. v. Thomas L. Feitner (6 proceedings). The People ex rel. David W. Bishop, Jr., v. Thomas L. Feitner et al.
    (Supreme Court, New York Special Term,
    March, 1907.)
    Taxes — Equalization, correction and review of assessments — Certiorari — Review—Reference.
    Where in certiorari proceedings, twenty-one in number, brought by eight separate and distinct sets of relators to review assessments for taxation for two or more years of various large parcels of improved real estate in the city of New York, the issue is that the relators’ property is assessed higher in proportion to its value than other property in the tax rolls, and it is clear that the testimony of experts, whose time is so occupied that it might well be impossible to assemble them and to keep them together for the purpose of trial in court, will he offered in evidence and that the interests of justice require that ample opportunity to cross-examine them and to introduce testimony in rebuttal should he afforded, the court, in the exercise of the discretion conferred upon it by section 253 of the Tax Law (L. 1896, eh. 908), may send the proceedings to various referees under orders containing such reasonable provisions for expediting the proceedings as may be agreed upon.
    Motioet to refer above-entitled proceedings to referees to take the testimony and to report with opinion.
    Bowers & Sands, for relators.
    William B. Ellison, Corporation Counsel, for respondents.
   Blanchard, J.

This is a motion to refer the proceedings above entitled to referees to take testimony and to report with opinion. These proceedings are brought by writ of certiorari to review assessments for taxation, during the years 1899, 1900 and 1901, against various large parcels "of improved real estate in ¡New York city. The proceedings are twenty-one in number, and are brought by eight separate and distinct sets of relators, and in the instance of every parcel a review of the assessment for two or more of the years above mentioned is asked. .Since the parcels upon which a review of assessment is asked are very valuable, including such buildings as the Pulitzer building, the Wanamaker building, the Oammeyer building and similar valuable structures, it is clear that the testimony of the very best experts, men whose time is so occupied that it might well be impossible to assemble them and keep them together for the purpose of trial in court, will be offered in evidence, and that the interests of justice require that ample opportunity to cross-examine these witnesses and to introduce rebutting testimony should be afforded. As the affidavit of the assistant corporation counsel shows, the eiperience of the past proves that these ends may best be accomplished in hearings before a referee rather than by trial in court, and in only a very few instances, and those involving real estate of less importance than that in the present case, and requiring merely about one day to try, has the court in recent years tried proceedings for the review of assessments of real property. Since the issue, in all the present cases, is that the relators’ property is assessed higher in proportion to its value than other property in the tax-rolls, it- is clear that proof of value of large numbers of parcels will be offered. Thus, in the People ex rel. Stewart v. Feitner, 95 App. Div. 481, the relator offered proof of the value of about 577 parcels and the defendants of about 123. In People ex rel. Western Electric Co. v. Feitner, 96 App. Div. 615, the relator offered proof of about 145 parcels and the defendants of about 50. In the Mutual Reserve case, N. Y. L. J., Dec. 19, 1905, the relator offered proof of about 60 parcels and the defendants of about 266. Since the value of the property involved in the present proceedings shows every promise that the proof will be as thorough as in the proceedings above mentioned, the advantages of taking testimony before a referee, rather than in court, are apparent. Accordingly, the court is disposed to exercise the discretion conferred upon it in such proceedings by section 253 of the Tax Law, and to refer these proceedings to various referees. The court will make orders containing such reasonable provisions for expediting these proceedings as the parties may agree upon, following the lines suggested in the affidavit of the assistant corporation counsel.

Ordered accordingly.