Case Name: PEOPLE ex rel. KEIM et al. v. DESMOND et al.
Court: New York Supreme Court, Appellate Division
Jurisdiction: New York
Decision Date: 1906-03-07
Citations: 97 N.Y.S. 795
Docket Number: 
Parties: PEOPLE ex rel. KEIM et al. v. DESMOND et al.
Judges: 
Reporter: West's New York Supplement
Volume: 97
Pages: 795–801

Head Matter:
PEOPLE ex rel. KEIM et al. v. DESMOND et al.
(Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Fourth Department.
March 7, 1906.)
1. Municipal Corporations—Apportionment of Benefits of Improvement— Frontaqe of Lots.
Though it appears by computation that an assessment is at a uniform rate according to the frontage of the respective premises taxed, this alone is not sufficient to condemn the assessment as being in violation of the • charter of the city of Utica, § 99, subd. 2, which provides that the expense of improvements shall be assessed upon such real estate as the assessors shall deem benefited thereby in proportion to the amount of its benefits.
2. Same—Jurisdiction of Courts as to Assessment.
Where the assessors of benefits for a sewer expressly state In thetr return that the sewer is laid for the benefit of the property equally on both
• sides of the street, such return involves the judgment and discretion of the assessors, and is not reviewabie by the supreme court by certiorari.
3. Same—Benefits from Sewer.
It cannot be considered that a sewer is of no benefit to property, although a sewer previously existed which was evidently intended to accommodate temporarily the lands directly opposite, which were assessed for the new sewer; the latter being intended as a permanent part of the general sewer system of the city and to supersede the old sewer.
McLennan, P. J., and Nash, J., dissenting.
Certiorari by the people of the state of New York, on the relation of Henry C. Keim and others, against John C. Desmond and others, composing the board of assessors of the city of Utica, and John A. Cantwell, city clerk.
Writ dismissed.
Argued before McLENNAN, P. J., and SPRING, WILLIAMS, NASH, and KRUSE, JJ.
W. L. Goodier, for relators.
Wm. Townsend, for defendants.

Opinion:
KRUSE, J.
The relators seek to have reviewed by certiorari the validity of a local assessment for constructing a sewer in the street which their lands adjoin. The primary question involved in this controversy is whether, in making their determination, any rule of law was violated by the assessors to the prejudice of the relators. We think this has not been made to appear. The lands of the relators are on the westerly side of the street. They are considerably higher than on the east side. In 1871 a stub sewer was constructed on the west side of the street about halfway across the block, evidently to accommodate temporarily the lands directly opposite the sewer on the west side of the street, which included the relator's premises, the lands on the east side being too low to drain into it. In 1904 the sewer in question was constructed, running substantially parallel with the first, but nearer the east side, intended, no doubt, as a permanent part of the general sewer system of the city and to supersede the old sewer. It extended across the entire block, and was so built that both sides of the street can drain into it. The assessors in their return state that the "sewer as laid is a benefit to the property owners equally upon both sides of. the street, and that said sewer, so laid, is provided with necessary elbows and tees for connecting with the sewers from houses on each of the lots on the westerly side of South Hamilton street, and was built and constructed and is adapted for the purpose of draining the lots and houses on both sides of South .Plamilton street." The assessors seem to have apportioned the expenses of this last sewer equally on both sides of the street according to the frontage of each lot. The relators appeared before the assessors and objected to the assessment, but the assessors adhered to their determination, and thereupon the relators filed their objections with the city clerk, as the charter of the city permits, to bring the matter before the common coun cil. That body unanimously annulled the assessment and referred it back to the assessors to make a new assessment, and the assessors again apportioned the expenses as before, made the reassessment precisely the same as the first assessment. It is not claimed that the officers of the city in constructing this sewer did not proceed as the charter provides, or that there is any infirmity in the proceedings, save that the assessment is not made in accordance with the provisions of the charter. By subdivision 2 of section 99 of the charter it is provided that, as regards work of this character, "the expense thereof shall be assessed upon such real estate as they shall deem benefitted thereby in proportion to the amount of its benefits."
It is contended that in making this assessment the assessors departed from this rule. The objection is now made that the assessment was made upon the foot frontage basis, and not according to what the improvement actually benefited the relator's lands, although the specific objection was not-made to'either the assessors or the common council that the assessment was wrong, because made upon the foot frontage basis. It was contended there that this sewer was no benefit to the lands on the west side of the street, or, as it is put in the objections filed with the city clerk:
"That the property on the west side of the street is certainly not benefited to anything like the extent that the property on the east side of the street is by this sewer, and should not pay at the same rate as the property on the east side of the street. But, notwithstanding this, the assessment is at the same rate on both sides of the street."
Assuming, however, that the objections are sufficient to raise the question, we still think that the relators have failed to establish that the assessors departed from the rule laid down in the charter for making assessments of this character. By commutation it appears that the assessment is at a uniform rate according to the frontage of the respective premises taxed, but this alone is not sufficient to condemn the assessment for it may still correctly represent the proportionate benefit of the improvement to each lot. People ex rel. Scott v. Pitt, 169 N. Y. 521, 62 N. E. 662, 58 L. R. A. 372; City of Ithaca v. Babcock, 72 App. Div. 260, 76 N. Y. Supp. 49; Donovan v. City of Oswego, 90 App. Div. 397, 401, 86 N. Y. Supp. 155), and this holds good as to premises on either side of the street, for the assessors expressly state in their return that the sewer is laid for the benefit to the property equally on both sides of the street, and for the purpose of this review the return must be taken as true. While there are other circumstances which might lead to a contrary conclusion, yet it is a question of fact for the assessors involving their judgment and discretion and not reviewable here. O'Reilley v. City of Kingston, 114 N. Y. 439, 442, 21 N. E. 1004 Le Roy v. Mayor, etc., 20 Johns. 432, 11 Am. Dec. 289. Although the common council might annul this first assessment and remit the matter to the assessors for reassessment, yet the assessors were the final arbiters of the extent that these lands were benefitted by this sewer. The charter makes the reassessment final and conclusive. Utica Charter, § 107.
The cases relied upon by the relators we think do not apply. It appeared in those cases from the physical situation and undisputed facts, that the local improvement was of no benefit to the lands assessed, as in the Dunkirk Case, where it appeared that the lands were so low that they could not be drained .into the sewer. Clark v. Village of Dunkirk, 12 Hun, 187. Such is not this case. It cannot be said that this sewer is. no benefit, and the amount or extent of its benefit to the relator's lands was a question for the assessors. They saw the premises, knew their precise location, area, depth of lots, the extent of the improvements, the relative value of the lots on the west side, which are on high ground as compared with those on the low ground on the east side, the condition of the old sewer, the service and added value of the new sewer to these lands and their circumstances, which we cannot know, and regarding which the record is silent. The objection is also made by the defendants that the writ of certiorari will not lie to review the determination of the assessors for the reason that their determination after the review by the common council is made final and conclusive by the express provisions of the charter. People ex rel. Schuylerville, etc., R. R. v. Betts, 55 N. Y. 600; People ex rel. Rothchild v. Muh, 101 App. Div. 423, 92 N. Y. Supp. 22, but upon that we express no opinion. We rest our decision upon the ground that the relators have not shown that the assessors violated any rule of law in making their assessment prejudicial to their rights. This they are required to establish to successfully attack its validity. The writ of certiorari must be dismissed, g.nd the assessment confirmed, with $50 costs, and disbursements.
Writ of certiorari dismissed, and assessment confirmed, with $50 costs, and disbursements. All concur, except McLENNAN, P. J., and NASH, J:, who dissent.