Case Name: The People of the State of New York ex rel. Interstate Land Holding Company, Appellant, v. Lawson Purdy et al., as Commissioners of Taxes and Assessments of the City of New York, Respondents. (Taxes of 1915 and 1916.)
Court: New York Court of Appeals
Jurisdiction: New York
Decision Date: 1923-07-13
Citations: 236 N.Y. 609
Docket Number: 
Parties: The People of the State of New York ex rel. Interstate Land Holding Company, Appellant, v. Lawson Purdy et al., as Commissioners of Taxes and Assessments of the City of New York, Respondents. (Taxes of 1915 and 1916.)
Judges: Concur: Hiscock, Ch. J., Hogan, Crane and Andrews, JJ. Dissenting: Cardozo, Pound and McLaughlin, JJ.
Reporter: New York Reports
Volume: 236
Pages: 609–610

Head Matter:
The People of the State of New York ex rel. Interstate Land Holding Company, Appellant, v. Lawson Purdy et al., as Commissioners of Taxes and Assessments of the City of New York, Respondents. (Taxes of 1915 and 1916.)
Tax — assessment of real property — application for reduction to stated amount — court may not reduce assessed valuation below value stated in application even though it find as fact that value of property is less than that stated.
People ex rel. Interstate Land Holding Co. v. Purdy, 206 App. Div. 606, affirmed.
(Argued June 5, 1923;
decided July 13, 1923.)
Appeal from two orders of the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court in the first judicial department, entered March 2, 1923, which affirmed, on certiorari, two orders of Special Term reducing assessments for taxation upon real property of the relator for the years 1915 and 1916. Relator filed applications requesting that the assessed value of its property be fixed at certain amounts. Defendants refused and this proceeding was commenced. The court found as a fact that the value of the property was less than the amounts to which relator requested that the valuations be reduced but holding that relator could obtain no greater reductions than to the amounts claimed in its application fixed the assessment at those amounts. Relator contended that the assessed valuation should be at the amounts found by the court to be the true value.
John Larkin for appellant.
George P. Nicholson, Corporation Counsel (William H. King and Charles E. Lalanne of counsel), for respondents.

Opinion:
Order in each case affirmed, with costs; no opinion.
Concur: Hiscock, Ch. J., Hogan, Crane and Andrews, JJ. Dissenting: Cardozo, Pound and McLaughlin, JJ.