Case Name: The People of the State of New York ex rel. The Board of Commissioners for Improvements on the Great Chazy River et al., Appellants, v. F. M. San comb et al., Assessors of the Town of Dannemora, Respondents
Court: New York Court of Appeals
Jurisdiction: New York
Decision Date: 1932-03-22
Citations: 259 N.Y. 1
Docket Number: 
Parties: The People of the State of New York ex rel. The Board of Commissioners for Improvements on the Great Chazy River et al., Appellants, v. F. M. San comb et al., Assessors of the Town of Dannemora, Respondents.
Judges: 
Reporter: New York Reports
Volume: 259
Pages: 1–4

Head Matter:
The People of the State of New York ex rel. The Board of Commissioners for Improvements on the Great Chazy River et al., Appellants, v. F. M. San comb et al., Assessors of the Town of Dannemora, Respondents.
(Argued March 14, 1932;
decided March 22, 1932.)
Seth S. Allen for appellants.
The lands assessed are within the limits of a public district as defined by chapter 470 of the Laws of 1926. (Matter of Floyd-Jones v. Town Board, 249 N. Y. 398; Demarest v. Mayor, 74 N. Y. 161; Holroyd v. Town of Indian Lake, 180 N. Y. 318; People ex rel. Dresden v. Connolly, 238 N. Y. 326; Matter of City of New York, 217 N. Y. 45; Matter of City of Rochester v. Holden, 224 N. Y. 386; Board of Black River Regulating District v. Ogsbury, 203 App. Div. 43; 235 N. Y. 600; Bradley v. Degnon Contracting Co., 224 N. Y. 60; Hudson River Regulating District v. F., J. & G. R. R. Co., 223 App. Div. 358; 249 N. Y. 445; Matter of Long Sault Development Co. v. Kennedy, 158 App. Div. 398; 212 N. Y. 1; Matter of Burns, 155 N. Y. 23; People v. Lockner, 177 N. Y. 145; Seeley v. Stevens, 190 N. Y. 158; People v. Bradley, 207 N. Y. 592; People ex rel. Henderson v. Board of Supervisors, 147 N. Y. 1; Brooklyn Park Ave. Commission v. Armstrong, 45 N. Y. 234; Knickerbocker Ice Co. v. 42nd St. R. R. Co., 39 Misc. Rep. 27; 85 App. Div. 530; 176 N. Y. 408; Matter of Wilder, 90 App. Div. 262.) Chapter 289 of the Laws of 1868 was enacted for the public purpose of checking freshets in the Great Chazy river. (Matter of Burns, 155 N. Y. 23; Matter of Tuthill, 163 N. Y. 133.)
John J. Bennett, Jr., Attorney-General (Charles E. McManus of counsel), for State of New York.
A public district was created by chapter 289 of the Laws of 1868. (Matter of Floyd-Jones v. Town Board, 249 N. Y. 398; Holroyd v. Town of Indian Lake, 180 N. Y. 318; People ex rel. Desiderio v. Conolly, 238 N. Y. 326; People v. Stoll, 242 N. Y. 453.) The exemption from taxation of the public district is constitutional. (Matter of City of New York, 217 N. Y. 45; Matter of City of Rochester v. Holden, 224 N. Y. 386; Board of Black River Regulating District v. Ogsbury, 203 App. Div. 43; 235 N. Y. 600; Board of Hudson River Regulating District v. F., J. & G. R. R. Co., 233 App. Div. 358; 249 N. Y. 445; Matter of Burns, 155 N. Y. 23; Matter of Rouge River, 266 Fed. Rep. 105; Alabama Power Co. v. Gulf Power Co., 283 Fed. Rep. 606.)
Patrick J. Tierney and J. Edgar Downs for respondents.
The property assessed is not exempt under section 4, subdivision 3-a, of the Tax Law, as it is not a public district. (Board of Black River Regulating District v. Ogsbury, 203 App. Div. 43; 235 N. Y. 600; Board of Hudson River Regulating District v. F., J. & G. R. R. Co., 127 Misc. Rep. 866; 233 App. Div. 358; 249 N. Y. 445; People v. Cameron, 140 App. Div. 76; Matter of Frances Estate, 121 App. Div. 129; Elks v. Purdy, 179 App. Div. 805.)

Opinion:
Per Curiam.
Assuming that chapter 289, Laws of 1868, entitled " An Act to provide for the improvement of the hydraulic power of the Great Chazy river, and to check freshets therein," creates a " public district " within the definition contained in section 2, subdivision 1, chapter 470, Laws of 1926, the real property embraced therein is not exempt from taxation under section 4, subdivision 3-a, of the Tax Law (Cons. Laws, ch. 60), as such property is not used exclusively for the public purpose for which the district was established. The regulation of freshets in the Great Chazy river is a public purpose. (Board of Black River Regulating District v. Ogsbury, 203 App. Div. 43; affd., 235 N. Y. 600.) The improvement of hydraulic power in the aid of private owners is not. (Hay v. Cohoes Co., 3 Barb. 42, 47.)
The act (L. 1868, ch. 289) may be deemed constitutional (Board of Black River Regulating District v. Ogsbury, supra) without extending tax exemption to the property assessed.
The order should be affirmed with costs.
Pound, Ch. J., Crane, Lehman, O'Brien and Hubbs, JJ., concur; Kellogg, J., not sitting.
Order affirmed.