Case Name: Collins v. City of Long Island
Court: New York Supreme Court, General Term
Jurisdiction: New York
Decision Date: 1890-05-12
Citations: 10 N.Y.S. 167
Docket Number: 
Parties: Collins v. City of Long Island.
Judges: 
Reporter: West's New York Supplement
Volume: 10
Pages: 167–168

Head Matter:
Collins v. City of Long Island.
(Supreme Court, General Term, Second Department.
May 12, 1890.)
Taxation—Assessment—Non-Resident Owners.
Under Laws N. Y. 1880, c. 339, providing that tax assessments on land in Long Island City shall not be invalidated “by reason of any error, mistake, or insufficiency in the owner’s name, ” and that the tax shall be a “lien on the property assessed until discharged by payment, ” an assessment of the land of a non-resident is not vitiated by being assessed to unknown owners.
Appeal from judgment on report of referee.
Action by Benjamin Collins against Long Island City to vacate taxes on lands in defendant city for the years 1884, 1885, and 1886. The lands were vacant and unoccupied. There was judgment for plaintiff. Defendant appeals.
Argued before Barnard, P. J., and Dykman and Pratt, JJ.
W. J. Foster, for appellant. E. Wott Anable, for respondent.

Opinion:
Barnard, P. J.
The case shows that the assessments were made to unknown owners, and to one Zolikoffer. The lands were then owned by Mary Norwood, a non-resident of Queens county. There is no difference, as to assessments upon lands in Long Island City, between lands of residents and non-residents. No separate column is required for the two classes of persons. Chapter 461, tit. 6, Laws 1871. The entry of the wrong name as owner did not invalidate the tax. No assessments, which shall be made for any taxes in Long Island City, shall be invalidated " by reason of any error, mistake, or insufficiency in the owner's name." The tax is a "lien on the property assessed, until discharged by payment." Chapter 339, Laws 1880. By these laws, it is provided that no tax upon lands shall be invalidated in consequence of the omission of the name of the rightful owner. When the assessment under this act was made against an estate of a deceased person, it was held that the tax was good. Haight v. Mayor, etc., 99 N. Y. 280, 1 N. E. Rep. 883. The judgment should therefore be reversed, and a new trial granted at special term, costs to abide event. All concur.