Case Name: The People of the State of New York ex rel. S. Fletcher Allen, as Supervisor of the Town of Cortlandt, Relator, v. The Board of Supervisors of the County of Westchester and Others, Respondents
Court: New York Supreme Court, Appellate Division
Jurisdiction: New York
Decision Date: 1906-06-08
Citations: 113 A.D. 773
Docket Number: 
Parties: The People of the State of New York ex rel. S. Fletcher Allen, as Supervisor of the Town of Cortlandt, Relator, v. The Board of Supervisors of the County of Westchester and Others, Respondents.
Judges: 
Reporter: Appellate Division Reports
Volume: 113
Pages: 773–775

Head Matter:
The People of the State of New York ex rel. S. Fletcher Allen, as Supervisor of the Town of Cortlandt, Relator, v. The Board of Supervisors of the County of Westchester and Others, Respondents.
Second Department,
June 8, 1906.
Certiorari—writ will not lie to review action of supervisors done pursuant to section 134 of the Poor Law.
The acts of supervisors in distinguishing between town and county poor pursuant to section 184 of the Poor Law, and in assessing a town for the support of its poor pursuant to sections 9 and 10 of chapter 225 of the Laws of 1896, are legislative and not judicial, and cannot be reviewed by certiorari.
Certiorari issued out of the Supreme Court and attested on the 3d day of July, 1905, directed to the board of supervisors of the county of Westchester and others, commanding them, to certify and return to the office of the clerk of the "county of .Westchester all and singular the proceedings .had in levying a certain assessment against the town of Cortlandt. ." . '
James Dempsey [Clinton F. Ferris with him on the brief], for the relator.
Isaac N. Mills, for the respondents.

Opinion:
Miller, J.
This is a proceeding to review certain acts of the board of super-, visors of the county of Westchester,, to wit, the passage of a resolution reviving the distinction between town and county poor, pursuant to section 134 of the Poor Law (Laws of 1896, chap. 225), .the levy and assessment upon the town of Cortlandt of, taxes for the. support of the poor of said town, pursuant to sections 9 and 10 of said chapter. 225 of the Laws of 1896.
The point is made by the defendants that the relator'has mistaken his remedy. The question respecting what acts can be reviewed by certiorari has been considered so recently and exhaustivély by the Court of Appeals as to require no further discussion in this court;"' (People ex rel. Schau v. McWilliams, 185 N. Y. 92.) In the case cited, the distinction between a judicial act, as the term is frequently used,.and the act of an. officer or body performed in the discharge-pf a judicial function, is clearly pointed out, and the authorities upon the. question carefully reviewed by Chief Judge Cullen. -It only remains to determine under what head the acts sought to be reviewed are to be resolved. It is plain that in passing the resolution sought to be reviewed, and in apportioning the taxes among the different towns, the board of supervisors discharged legislative and not judicial functions. (People ex rel. Trustees v. Board of Supervisors, 131 N. Y. 468 ; People ex rel. O'Connor v. Supervisors, 153 id. 370.) The' relator relies upon cases .which sustain a review by certiorari at the instance of a taxpayer of an assessment of " his property made .-by local assessors,, but in such . case, the proceeding .is judicial in its character, the party is entitled to a notice and a hearing, and may present evidence upon which the assessors are- required to.act as, judges.
Having reached the conclusion that certiorari will not lie, our only course is to dismiss the writ without a consideration on the merits of the questions presented.
Hirschberg, P. J., Woodward, Jenks and Hooker, JJ., concurred. .
Writ of certiorari dismissed, with costs.