Case Name: The People of the State of New York ex rel. Watson B. Dickerman et al., Appellants, v. George W. Sutton, as Commissioner of Assessment and Taxation of the City of New Rochelle, et al., Respondents
Court: New York Court of Appeals
Jurisdiction: New York
Decision Date: 1921-03-01
Citations: 230 N.Y. 617
Docket Number: 
Parties: The People of the State of New York ex rel. Watson B. Dickerman et al., Appellants, v. George W. Sutton, as Commissioner of Assessment and Taxation of the City of New Rochelle, et al., Respondents.
Judges: 
Reporter: New York Reports
Volume: 230
Pages: 617–618

Head Matter:
The People of the State of New York ex rel. Watson B. Dickerman et al., Appellants, v. George W. Sutton, as Commissioner of Assessment and Taxation of the City of New Rochelle, et al., Respondents.
Tax — assessment — review by certiorari — sufficiency of petition.
People ex rel. Dickerman v. Sutton, 189 App. Div. 918, reversed.
(Argued January 13, 1921;
decided March. 1, 1921.)
Appeal from an order of the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court in the second judicial department, entered October 31, 1919, which reversed an order of Special Term denying a motion to quash a writ of certiorari to review an assessment upon relator’s real property for the year 1918, and granted said motion. The property in question, a farm entirely within the limits of the city of New Rochelle, was assessed in two parcels, the total assessment amounting to the sum of $463,860. After application to the local authorities for a reduction the writ herein was prayed for on the ground of overvaluation and inequality of assessment. The Appellate Division quashed the writ upon the ground that the petition is insufficient as to the claim of overvaluation, because the extent of overvaluation is stated in the aggregate for both parcels assessed, not separately for each, and as to inequality because the instances in which said inequality exists are not specified.
Walter D. Young for appellants.
Charles A. Van Auken for respondents.

Opinion:
Order of Appellate Division reversed and that of Special Term affirmed, with costs in this court and Appellate Division, on authority of People ex rel. Ward v. Sutton (230 N. Y. 339).
Concur: Hiscock, Ch. J., Hogan, Cardozo, Pound, McLaughlin, Crane and Andrews, JJ.