Case Name: PEOPLE ex rel. STRAUS et al. v. PURDY et al.
Court: New York Supreme Court, Appellate Division
Jurisdiction: New York
Decision Date: 1913-12-19
Citations: 144 N.Y.S. 921
Docket Number: 
Parties: PEOPLE ex rel. STRAUS et al. v. PURDY et al.
Judges: 
Reporter: West's New York Supplement
Volume: 144
Pages: 921–921

Head Matter:
PEOPLE ex rel. STRAUS et al. v. PURDY et al.
(Supreme Court, Appellate Division, First Department.
December 19, 1913.)
Taxation (§ 493 )—Assessment—Review by Courts—Findings.
In a proceeding to review an assessment for taxation, where the trial court determined that the fair market value of the land assessed was in excess of the assessment, it should merely have found that fact, without finding the exact value of the land in excess of the assessment; the issue being merely whether or not the fair market value of the land was less than the assessment.
[Ed. Note.—For other cases, see Taxation, Cent. Dig. §§ 876-883; Dec. Dig: § 493.*]
Appeal from Special Term, New York Comity.
Proceeding by the People, on relation of Isidor Straus and others, against Lawson Purdy and others, as commissioners, to review an assessment for taxation. From an order confirming the assessment, relators appeal.
Modified.
Argued before INGRAHAM, P. J., and McLAUGHLIN, LAUGH-LIN, CLARKE, and SCOTT, JJ;
Edmond E. Wise, of1 New York City, for appellants.
Curtis A. Peters, of New York City (Eugene Fay, of New York City, on the brief), for respondents.
For other eases see same topic & § numbbb in Dee. & Am. Digs. 1907 to date, & Rep’r Indexes

Opinion:
PER CURIAM.
The issue presented was whether or not the fair market value of the land, unimproved, was less than $4,000,000, the amount at which it was assessed. It appearing that the fair market value was in excess of that sum, the order appealed from should be affirmed; but the fourth finding, should be modified, because it was unnecessary to determine the exact value of the land unimproved, in excess of the amount at which it had been assessed. The fourth finding of fact is therefore modified, so as to read: .
"That on the second Monday of January, 1910, the said property, unimproved, was of a market value in excess of 84,000,000."
As so modified, the order is affirmed, with costs to the respondent.