Case Name: PEOPLE ex rel. BUFFALO NATURAL-GAS FUEL CO. v. STATE BOARD OF TAX COM'RS
Court: New York Supreme Court, Appellate Division
Jurisdiction: New York
Decision Date: 1900-11-20
Citations: 67 N.Y.S. 51
Docket Number: 
Parties: PEOPLE ex rel. BUFFALO NATURAL-GAS FUEL CO. v. STATE BOARD OF TAX COM’RS.
Judges: 
Reporter: West's New York Supplement
Volume: 67
Pages: 51–54

Head Matter:
(55 App. Div. 188.)
PEOPLE ex rel. BUFFALO NATURAL-GAS FUEL CO. v. STATE BOARD OF TAX COM’RS.
(Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Third Department.
November 20, 1900.)
Taxation—Review of Assessment—Certiorari—Return.
It being provided by Laws 1896, c. 908, § 252, that the return to a writ of certiorari to review an assessment must concisely set forth such other facts as may be pertinent and material to show the value of the property assessed, and the grounds for the valuation made by the assessing officers, the writ should not command a return of “the manner of making the same [the assessment], the method pursued by you in making and fixing a valuation on such special franchise of petitioner in said city, * * * with the basis adopted by you for such valuation”; it being ambiguous and confusing, unauthorized if requiring more than the statute, and unnecessary if requiring no more.
Kellogg, J., dissenting.
Appeal from special term, Albany county.
Certiorari, on the relation of the Buffalo Natural-Gas Fuel Company, against the state board of tax commissioners. From an order denying defendant’s application to modify the writ by striking out of the requirement as to the return to be made the following: “Including the manner of making the same, the method pursued by you in making and fixing a valuation upon such special franchise of the petitioner in said city of Buffalo, with the basis adopted by you for such valuation thereof,”—it appeals.
Reversed.
Argued before PARKER, P. J., and KELLOGG, EDWARDS, MERWIN, and SMITH, JJ.
John C. Davies, Atty. Gen. (Henry B. Coman, Dep. Atty. Gen., of counsel), for appellant.
Lewis E. Carr and D. B. Hill, for respondent.

Opinion:
SMITH, J.
By section 252 of the tax law (chapter 908, Laws 1896), the return of the assessors "must concisely set forth such other facts as may be pertinent and material to show the value of the property assessed on the roll and the grounds for the valuation made by the assessing officers." Not only, therefore, must the assessors return "the facts pertinent and material to show the value of the property"; they are further to return "the grounds of their valuation." The wisdom of this statutory requirement is not for our consideration. By the writ the assessors are required to return "the manner of making the same [the assessment], the method pursued by you in making and fixing a valuation upon such special franchise of the petitioner in said city of Buffalo, with the basis adopted by you for such valuation thereof." The vice in this pro-, vision of the writ would seem to lie in its ambiguity. It is not clear what is meant by "manner," "method," and "basis." If it be construed to require more than is required by statute, it is unauthorized, and calls for a return which would only incumber the record. If it be construed, however, to require no more, it is then unnecessary. It seems to have been held in the First department that the assessors could not be required to return the method by which they arrived at their conclusion. People v. Gilon (Sup.) 22 N. Y. Supp. 238. In my judgment, the form of the writ would serve to confuse, rather than to enlighten, the assessors in making return to the writ. The assessors are already directed by the statute. If the return do not accord with that direction, it may be returned for correction. The matter complained of should be stricken from the writ.
Order, so far as is appealed from, is reversed, and the motion to strike out granted, and in lieu' of the words stricken out the following to he inserted: "Including such other facts as may he pertinent and material to show the value of the property assessed on the roll, and the grounds for the valuation made by the assessing officers." All concur, except KELLOGG, J., dissenting.