Case ID: ny_231/html/0572-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "McLaughlin, 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. The Long Island Railroad Company, Respondent, v. State Board of Tax Commissioners, Appellant. The City of New York, Intervener, Appellant.
    
      Tax — railroads — special franchises — review of assessments — overvaluation.
    
    
      People ex rel. L. 1. R. R. Co. v. Stale Bd. Tax Comrs., 193 App. Div. 911, affirmed.
    (Argued April 19, 1921;
    decided May 31, 1921.)
    Appeal, by permission, from an order of the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court in the second judicial department, entered July 27, 1920, which unanimously affirmed an order of Special Term reducing an assessment for taxation of special franchises of the relator in the boroughs of Kings and Queens, city of New York, for the year 1912.
    
      
      Charles D. Newton, Attorney-General (Martin Saxe and Charles R. McSparren of counsel), for State Board of Tax Commissioners, appellant.
    
      John P. O’Brien, Corporation Counsel (William H. King, Eugene Fay and Paul F. Lorzer of counsel), for City of New York, appellant.
    
      Alfred A. Gardner and Joseph F. Keany for respondent.
   McLaughlin, J.

This appeal relates to an assessment for the purpose of taxation of a special franchise for the year 1912. The relator did not appeal from the order of the Special Term because the assessment for prior occupation of crossing was stricken out and no question of inequality was raised, since the state board of tax commissioners equalized it before final notice was sent out, pursuant to chapter 804 of the Laws of 1911. The order of the Special Term was unanimously affirmed and leave given to appeal to this court, the Appellate Division certifying that in its opinion a question of law is involved which ought to be here reviewed.

The order appealed from should be affirmed, with costs.

All concur, except Cardozo, Pound and Andrews, JJ., dissenting.

Order affirmed.