Case Name: The People of the State of New York ex rel. The East River Gas Company of Long Island City, Appellant, v. Lawson Purdy et al., as Commissioners of Taxes and Assessments of the City of New York, Respondents. (Three Proceedings)
Court: New York Court of Appeals
Jurisdiction: New York
Decision Date: 1918-01-29
Citations: 222 N.Y. 658
Docket Number: 
Parties: The People of the State of New York ex rel. The East River Gas Company of Long Island City, Appellant, v. Lawson Purdy et al., as Commissioners of Taxes and Assessments of the City of New York, Respondents. (Three Proceedings).
Judges: 
Reporter: New York Reports
Volume: 222
Pages: 658–659

Head Matter:
The People of the State of New York ex rel. The East River Gas Company of Long Island City, Appellant, v. Lawson Purdy et al., as Commissioners of Taxes and Assessments of the City of New York, Respondents. (Three Proceedings).
People ex rel. East River Gas Co. of Long Island City v. Purdy, 179 App. Div. 889, affirmed.
(Argued January 10, 1918;
decided January 29, 1918.)
Appeal, in each of three above-entitled proceedings, by permission, from an order of the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court in the first judicial department, entered July 6, 1917, which affirmed an order of Special Term confirming assessments upon an uncompleted tunnel in course of construction by the relator under the East river. The relator attacked the assessments upon the grounds that the tunnel under the East river should have been assessed by the state board of tax commissioners as part of the special franchises of the company; that the assessments by the local board were, therefore, void; that the local .board had no power to assess the mere easement or right of way under the river; that was an easement in gross, an incorporeal hereditament, upon which no structure had been erected; that the assessments were void, because not made in the manner required by the statute; that the shafts had already been included in the assessments made against the owners of the upland in which they were situated and that the assessments, even if within the jurisdiction of the local board, represented an excessive valuation of the property.
John A. Garver for appellant.
William P. Burr, Corporation Counsel (William H. King and Addison B. Scoville of counsel), for respondents.

Opinion:
Order in each case affirmed, with costs of one appeal; no opinion.
Concur: Hiscock, Ch. J., Collin, Cuddeback, Hogan, Cardozo, Pound and Andrews, JJ.