Case Name: The People of the State of New York ex rel. The Washington Building Company et al., Appellants, v. Thomas L. Feitner et al., Commissioners of Taxes and Assessments of the City of New York, Respondents
Court: New York Court of Appeals
Jurisdiction: New York
Decision Date: 1900-06-12
Citations: 163 N.Y. 384
Docket Number: 
Parties: The People of the State of New York ex rel. The Washington Building Company et al., Appellants, v. Thomas L. Feitner et al., Commissioners of Taxes and Assessments of the City of New York, Respondents.
Judges: 
Reporter: New York Reports
Volume: 163
Pages: 384–390

Head Matter:
The People of the State of New York ex rel. The Washington Building Company et al., Appellants, v. Thomas L. Feitner et al., Commissioners of Taxes and Assessments of the City of New York, Respondents.
Tax Law—Section 250, Construed. Section 250 of the Tax Law (L. 1896, ch. 908), which provides that two or more persons assessed upon the game roll who are affected in the same manner by an alleged illegality, error or inequality in an assessmént may unite in the same petition to have the assessment declared illegal, was intended to apply to a situation wherein the adjudication upon the complaint of one taxpayer necessarily determines the complaint of others, as, where in reality but a single issue is presented, so that the law being settled as to the facts of one case it is alike applicable to all the other cases and the provision of the statute was not intended to permit any and all parties, who are aggrieved by their local assessments, to unite in one proceeding.
People ex rel. Washington Bldg. Co. v. Feitner, 49 App. Div. 385, affirmed.
(Argued April 17, 1900;
decided June 12, 1900.)
Appeal from an order of the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court in the first judicial department, made March 23, 1900, affirming an order of Special Term superseding a writ of certiorari to review the assessments for the year 1899 which had been levied upon certain real estate in the city of New York.
Applications having been made to the commissioners of taxes and assessments of the city of New York, by the Washington Building Association and twenty-one other parties, each owning separate and distinct parcels of real estate in different parts of New York city, for a reduction of the assessed valuation of their respective parcels, and hearings having been had, and the relief denied, a motion was made on behalf of all the parties for a writ of certiorari, to review such proceedings and the writ duly issued.
Thereafter a motion was made on behalf of the tax commissioners to quash or supersede the writ upon six enumerated grounds, the principal and material one of which was “ That there is a misjoinder of parties, inasmuch as the persons united in the said petition are not affected in the same manner by the alleged illegalities, errors.or inequalities.”
Truman H. Baldwin for appellants.
It was proper for the appellants to join in one proceeding. (L. 1896, ch. 208, § 250; L. 1897, ch. 367, § 906; People ex rel. v. Williams, 90 Hun, 501; People ex rel. v. Barker, 87 Hun, 194; People ex rel. v. Palmer, 86 Hun, 513; 148 N. Y. 732; People ex rel. v. Budlong, 25 App. Div. 373.)
John Whalen, Corporation Counsel (Jannes M. Ward of counsel), for respondents.
The order superseding the writ was properly granted, because there was a misjoinder of parties, inasmuch as the parties united in the said petition are not affected in the same manner by the alleged illegalities, errors or inequalities. (L. 1896, ch. 908, § 250.)

Opinion:
Parker, Ch. J.
We agree with the courts below that the last sentence of section 250 of chapter 908 of the Laws of 1896, which provides that " Two or more persons assessed upon the same roll who are affected in the same manner by the alleged illegality, error or inequality, may unite in the same petition," was intended to apply to a situation wherein the adjudication upon the complaint of one taxpayer necessarily determines the complaints of others, as, where in reality but a single issue is presented, so that the law being settled as to the facts of one case it is alike applicable to all other cases, but was not intended to permit any and all parties to unite who are aggrieved because of their local assessments. The statute was not, for instance, intended to countenance such an absurdity as uniting as relators in proceedings to review assessments the Brooklyn Rapid Transit railroad, with its several hundred miles of surface and elevated railroads in the borough of Brooklyn, the Metropolitan Traction Company, with its various owned and leased lines in the borough of Manhattan, and the Union Railway Company in the borough of the Bronx, necessitating upon the trial an examination of facts touching the value of the properties of each company as distinguished from the others and involving, therefore, different issues.
Our conclusion is that the courts below rightly decided the question presented and we approve of the reasoning which led to their determination.