Case Name: The People of the State of New York ex rel. The Coney Island Jockey Club, Respondent, v. Lawson Purdy et al., as Commissioners of Taxes and Assessments of the City of New York, Appellants
Court: New York Court of Appeals
Jurisdiction: New York
Decision Date: 1916-06-13
Citations: 218 N.Y. 714
Docket Number: 
Parties: The People of the State of New York ex rel. The Coney Island Jockey Club, Respondent, v. Lawson Purdy et al., as Commissioners of Taxes and Assessments of the City of New York, Appellants.
Judges: 
Reporter: New York Reports
Volume: 218
Pages: 714–714

Head Matter:
The People of the State of New York ex rel. The Coney Island Jockey Club, Respondent, v. Lawson Purdy et al., as Commissioners of Taxes and Assessments of the City of New York, Appellants.
People ex rel. Coney Island Jockey Club v. Purdy, 172 App. Div. ——, affirmed.
(Argued May 24, 1916;
decided June 13, 1916.)
■ Appeal from an order of the Appellate Division of the the Supreme Court in the second judicial department, entered January 7, 1916, which affirmed an order of Special Term reducing an assessment for purpose of taxation upon real property of the relator for the year 1913. The defendants’ appeal from a like affirmance by the Appellate Division of a Special Term final order reducing the assessment for the taxes of 1912 was lately before this court which affirmed the ■ Appellate Division (213 N. Y. 652: 161 App. Div. 943). In both proceedings the defendants, commissioners of taxes, were identical. In both cases the assessment was reduced by the Special Term from $2,130,000 to $1,592,170. There was no difference in substance in the evidence in the two cases, and the expert witnesses, both sides, testified there had been no change in the value of the premises between 1910 and 1913. The relator on the trial of this case offered in evidence the final order and findings of the 1912 case. The admission of such evidence was the subject of objection by defendants’ counsel and was substantially the only point of law involved on appeal.
Lamar Hardy, Corporation Counsel (William H. King and Eugene Fay of counsel), for appellants.
John M. Bowers and Latham G. Reed for respondent.

Opinion:
Order affirmed, with costs, the court being of the opinion that the previous determination was properly received in evidence as proof of value.
Ooncur: Willard Bartlett, Oh. J., Hiscock, Chase, Ouddeback, Hogan, Cardozo and Pound, JJ.