Case Name: In the Matter of New York Telephone Company, Appellant. William F. Canough, as Commissioner of Assessment of the City of Syracuse, Respondent. (2 Proceedings - 1941 and 1940 Assessments.)
Court: New York Court of Appeals
Jurisdiction: New York
Decision Date: 1943-06-18
Citations: 290 N.Y. 537
Docket Number: 
Parties: In the Matter of New York Telephone Company, Appellant. William F. Canough, as Commissioner of Assessment of the City of Syracuse, Respondent. (2 Proceedings — 1941 and 1940 Assessments.)
Judges: 
Reporter: New York Reports
Volume: 290
Pages: 537–544

Head Matter:
In the Matter of New York Telephone Company, Appellant. William F. Canough, as Commissioner of Assessment of the City of Syracuse, Respondent. (2 Proceedings — 1941 and 1940 Assessments.)
Argued March 4, 1943;
decided June 18, 1943.
Edward L. Blackman, George R. Fearon and Frank A. Fritz for appellant.
James C. Tormey, Corporation Counsel (Edward Garfield of counsel), for respondent.
Thomas D. Thacher, Corporation Counsel (Arthur A. Segall, Robert H. Wrubel and Edward Garfield of counsel), for City of New York, amicus curiae, in support of respondent’s position.
Andrew P. Ronan, Corporation Counsel (Herbert A. Hickman of counsel), for City of Buffalo, amicus curiae, in support of respondent’s position.

Opinion:
Per Curiam.
The orders should be affirmed, with costs, on the authority of Matter of New York Telephone Co. v. Ferris (257 App. Div. 415, 282 N. Y. 667).
There is no conflict between the Ferris case and People ex rel. New York Edison Co. v. Feitner (99 App. Div. 274, 181 N. Y. 549). The Tax Law has long defined " real property " as including " All mains, pipes and tanks laid or placed in, upon, above or under any public or private street or place for conducting steam, heat, water, oil, electricity ." (§ 2, subd. 6). This provision was held by the Feitner case not to include equipment which the Edison Company had placed in private premises of its customers for the purpose of connecting the premises with the company's feed mains in the street. The decision was that such equipment was not " laid or placed in, upon, above or under any public or private street or place." The word " place," as so used, was taken by the court to signify a short thoroughfare or square.
The orders should be affirmed, with costs.
Lehman, Ch. J., Loughran, Rippey, Conway and Desmond, JJ., concur; Lewis, J., taking no part.
Orders affirmed.