Case ID: ny-2d_12/html/0846-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "\n      Per Curiam.\n     Frobssel, J. (dissenting).", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

In the Matter of Staten Island Edison Corporation, Appellant-Respondent, v. Frank C. Moore et al., Constituting the State Board of Equalization and Assessment, Respondents-Appellants. City of New York, Intervenor-Respondent-Appellant.
    Argued December 4, 1962;
    decided December 31, 1962.
    
      
      Patrick H. Sullivan, John V. Thornton and Bernard L. Sanoff for appellant-respondent.
    
      Louis J. Lefkowitg, Attorney-General (Edward J. Grogan, Jr., and George A. Bads of counsel), for respondents-appellants.
    
      Leo A. Larkin, Corporation Counsel (Morris Einhorn and Morris Handel of counsel), for intervenor-respondent-appellant.
   Per Curiam.

On these cross appeals, taken as of right, the several parties argue numerous questions concerning proper methods of valuation and equalization in the assessment of special franchises (Tax Law, § 45, now Real Property Tax Law, §§ 600, 606). Since the challenged assessment was made by unusual methods dictated by the extraordinary circumstances referred to in the preamble to the statute which created the State Board of Equalization and Assessment (L. 1949, ch. 346, § 1), we believe it will serve little purpose to discuss the arguments advanced. It is sufficient simply to note that the record before us supports the result reached below and to say that we concur in the Appellate Division’s observation that there should be an end to this litigation which has extended over a period of 10 years.

The order appealed from should be affirmed, without costs.

Frobssel, J. (dissenting).

I cannot agree that extraordinary circumstances justify the “ unusual methods ” followed in fixing the challenged assessment here. On the second appeal, all parties agreed that real property on Staten Island was assessed on the average at 59% of full value during 1952. There was no basis in law for fixing the equalization rate at 88%.

The order appealed from should be reversed.

Chief Judge Desmond and Judges Dye, Fuld, Van Voqrhis and Foster concur in Per Curiam opinion; Judge Frobssel dissents in a memorandum; Judge Burke taking no part.

Order affirmed.