New-York tribune., 1901-05-12
AFFECTS TAX VALUATIONS.
MILLIONS INVOLVED IN AN APPELLATE
DIVISION DECISION ON-TAX
VALUATIONS.

The Appellate Division. with only Justice
Van Brunt) dissenting. has Just handed down
a decision which. according to the Tax Board.
comes close to revolutionizing the method Of
fixing valuations in this city. throwing into the
courts any case where the property owner may
consider himself aggrieved. The decision In
wolves tax valuations IN this city to the extent
of S172.OOO.OO0
Prior to the enactment of the present city
charter the law provided that the courts could
be asked to review assessments only when there
manifest evidence of illegality or under
valuation. The charter of 1897 added the word
Inequality to the causes for review by the
courts and II was on the comprehensiveness
OF this word more than on anything else that
a test suit was brought in 1899 by the owners
of the Bowling Green Building. The owners
alleged that there was gross Inequality in
the raising of their assessment from Sl,JOOOoO
to S2.5OO0O0 Spencer Trask was president Of
the Bowling Green Building Corporation and
Charles \. Peabody secretary and treas
urer. on advice of counsel they began an action
10 have the assessment reviewed. alleging that
it was radical Inequality 10 raise their
sessment 80 per cent in one year. Up to this
time 1880 only two suits to review valuation
assessments on real estate had been brought
against the Tax Commission in period OF
twenty years and those two cases were thrown
out. the court holding in effect that the Tax
. Cesilrrtssione-F. had supreme power Under the
chsrter the Owner9 OF the Bowling Green Build
ing applied to Justice Andrews for writ OF
certiorari 10 review the action OF the com
Inissioners. the property owners alleging that
their building had not increased in value in the
wear 1898 They contended on the other hand
that the rental value of large buildings in New
York had actually declined in that period. owing
. : qra
foot The company asked for reduction Of
100000
Justice Andrews granted the application. and
appointed Hamilton OdelI as a referee. Mr..
Odelrs decision was in favor of the plaintiffs.
and from II the city appealed TO the Appellate
Division. which now upholds Justice Andrews
and Mr. OdeIl Justice Mclaughlin wrote the
opinion which was concurred in by Justices Fat,
terson and Ingraham Justice Mclaughlin held
that facts had been shown warrantlng the ap-
nointnent of a referee. Justice Hatch con-
Cured in the opinion on the ground that there
had been inequality in arriving at the assessed
valuation. .
that no facts showing error had been adduced
and that if every appeal must De re1erfed the
courts would become the actual taxing power
Justtce Van Brunt expresses the opinion that
only where il appears on the face OF the record
that an error has been committed can the courts
Assistant CORPORATION Counsel James NJ.
Ward who had charge of the cttys side OF the
case. said Yesterday that the decision involved
property to the extent of $1I2,WO,OOO. with a
prospect that that sum would be largely ex-
ceeded as soon as property owners began 10 pc
lieve that there was good chance of upsettlng
the assessed valuations found by the Tax
Commission.
..it was not until the enlarged city charter
was enacted that these suits were possible,
said MIR Ward The ground of inequality was
never intended TO apply TO the city Suits for
merlv brought against the Tax Commission were
wholly on account of alleged excessive personal
valuations Under the city charter these suits
are now almost exclusively directed against real
property valuations"