Case ID: ny_237/html/0569-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "Cardozo, J.", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

The People of the State of New York ex rel. City of New York, Appellant, v. Albert L. Voris et al., as Assessors of the Town of Somers, Respondents.
    
      Tax — assessments — New York city water works — certiorari to review assessments objected to upon ground of overvaluation — court may not increase assessment of one parcel to overcome effect of reduction of assessment of another.
    
    
      People ex rel. City of New York v. Voris, 205 App. Div. 478, modified.
    (Argued January 7, 1924;
    decided February 19, 1924.)
    Appeal from an order of the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court in the second judicial department, entered April 25, 1923, which modified and affirmed as modified a final order of Special Term in a certiorari proceeding for the review of assessments for purposes of taxation of real property of the relator comprising portions of the Croton watershed and various structures thereon used for the purpose of conserving and protecting the water supply of the city of New York. The objections to the assessments were based principally upon the ground of overvaluation. The referee for the purpose of making the separate items of assessments of the real estate of the rel'ator conform to the assessed valuations of other real estate upon the same roll decreased the value of some parcels and increased the assessment of other parcels, making a total assessment of relator’s real property $964,158.80 as against the original and final completed assessment of the assessors of $744,158.80, or a total increase of $220,000.
    
      George P. Nicholson, Corporation Counsel (I. J.Beaudrias of counsel), for appellant.
    
      Henry B. Barrett for respondents.
   Cardozo, J.

For the reasons stated in People ex rel. City of New York v. Keeler, decided herewith (237 N. Y. 332), the assessments under review are erroneous to the extent that they were increased by order of the court over the valuations fixed by the assessors.

The order of the Appellate Division should be modified by directing that the several valuations enumerated in the seventh finding of fact and the third and fourth conclusions of law, in so far as they exceed the valuations fixed by the assessors as stated in the first finding of fact, shall be reduced so as to conform thereto; and, as so modified, the order should be affirmed, with costs to the appellant.

All concur.

Ordered accordingly.