Case Name: The People of the State of New York ex rel. New York Central Railroad Company, Appellant, v. State Tax Commission, Respondent. (Four Proceedings.) Review of Special Franchise Assessments for Years 1918-1921
Court: New York Court of Appeals
Jurisdiction: New York
Decision Date: 1924-04-01
Citations: 237 N.Y. 612
Docket Number: 
Parties: The People of the State of New York ex rel. New York Central Railroad Company, Appellant, v. State Tax Commission, Respondent. (Four Proceedings.) Review of Special Franchise Assessments for Years 1918-1921.
Judges: 
Reporter: New York Reports
Volume: 237
Pages: 612–613

Head Matter:
The People of the State of New York ex rel. New York Central Railroad Company, Appellant, v. State Tax Commission, Respondent. (Four Proceedings.) Review of Special Franchise Assessments for Years 1918-1921.
Tax — special franchise tax assessment — method of computation.
People ex rel. N. Y. C. B. B. Co. v. Plate Tax Commission, 206 App. Div. 558, affirmed.
(Argued February 18, 1924;
decided April 1, 1924.)
Appeal in each of above proceedings from an order of the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court • in the third judicial department, entered November 26, 1923, which reversed, so far as appealed from, an order entered upon the report of a referee modifying special franchise tax assessments against the relator in the city of Amsterdam and confirmed the assessment made in the first instance by the state tax commission with the exception of the assessment for the year 1921, which was reduced to that of the years immediately preceding. The portions of the orders under review herein relate to what is known as “ Erie Canal (Berme Bank) Lengthwise.” When the New York, West Shore and Buffalo Railway Company constructed its railroad through the city of Amsterdam it made a fill on state lands comprising the Erie canal and constructed a retaining wall lengthwise of said canal for the purpose of supporting said fill. Thereon it placed its tracks. The relator herein is the successor of the New York, West Shore and Buffalo Railway Company. It is not questioned that it is subject to a special franchise tax. The controversy relates to the method of arriving at the assessment and the amount thereof. Relator contended that the valuation of the wall should be based, not upon cost of reproduction less depreciation of the wall as it actually existed, but upon the cost of reproduction less depreciation of such a wall only as was necessary in the years in which these assessments were levied to support the railroad company’s fill and its tracks and traffic.
George II. Walker and Alex S. Ijyman for appellant
Carl Sherman, Attorney-General (John M. Farrell of counsel), for respondent.

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