Case Name: Max Bloom, Individually and on Behalf of All Other Taxpayers of the City of New York Similarly Situated, et al., Respondents, v. Mayor of the City of New York et al., Appellants
Court: New York Court of Appeals
Jurisdiction: New York
Decision Date: 1971-05-26
Citations: 28 N.Y.2d 952
Docket Number: 
Parties: Max Bloom, Individually and on Behalf of All Other Taxpayers of the City of New York Similarly Situated, et al., Respondents, v. Mayor of the City of New York et al., Appellants.
Judges: 
Reporter: New York Reports
Volume: 28
Pages: 952–956

Head Matter:
Max Bloom, Individually and on Behalf of All Other Taxpayers of the City of New York Similarly Situated, et al., Respondents, v. Mayor of the City of New York et al., Appellants.
Argued April 7, 1971;
decided May 26, 1971.
Louis J. Lefkowits, Attorney-General (Charles A. La Tor ella, Jr. and Samuel A. Eirshowits of counsel), appellant, pro se, and for State Board of Equalization and Assessment, appellant.
J. Lee Rankin, Corporation Counsel (James J. McGowan, Edward J. McLaughlin and Rosario J. Renda of counsel), for the City of New York and city officials and agencies, appellants.
W. Bernard Richland for respondents.

Opinion:
Memorandum. The order of the Appellate Division should be affirmed, with costs, and the question certified answered in the affirmative.
The opinion at the Appellate Division adequately and incisively treats of the issues involved. It is only then necessary to note that, even on a narrower view than that taken at the Appellate Division, plaintiffs have standing to litigate the issues. As real property taxpayers they are personally aggrieved by the taxes levied against their properties under the statute attacked and actions by State and municipal officials under the statute (cf. Matter of Donohue v. Cornelius, 17 N Y 2d 390, 396-397; St. Clair v. Yonkers Raceway, 13 N Y 2d 72, 76, cert. den. 375 U. S. 970; Matter of Posner v. Rockefeller, 33 A D 2d 314, 315-316, affd. 26 N Y 2d 970).
It should be emphasized that any view of the merits is inappropriate at this stage of the litigation.