Case Name: THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK ex rel. NATHAN B. WARREN and Others, Respondents, v. EDWARD CARTER and Others, General Assessors of the City of Troy, and JOHN D. SPICER, Comptroller of the City of Troy, Appellants
Court: New York Supreme Court, General Term
Jurisdiction: New York
Decision Date: 1888-02
Citations: 54 N.Y. Sup. Ct. 446
Docket Number: 
Parties: THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK ex rel. NATHAN B. WARREN and Others, Respondents, v. EDWARD CARTER and Others, General Assessors of the City of Troy, and JOHN D. SPICER, Comptroller of the City of Troy, Appellants.
Judges: Fish, J., concurred.
Reporter: Supreme Court Reports (Hun)
Volume: 54
Pages: 446–450

Head Matter:
THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK ex rel. NATHAN B. WARREN and Others, Respondents, v. EDWARD CARTER and Others, General Assessors of the City of Troy, and JOHN D. SPICER, Comptroller of the City of Troy, Appellants.
Proceedings to review unjust or unequal assessments ■ — ■ a reduction will be made when one parcel is assessed al a higher proportionate valuation than .other real property in the immediate vicinity ■— the assessors a/i’e proper pa/rties to the writ.
Upon an appeal from an order made at Special Term, reducing the assessed valuation of a parcel of real estate belonging to the relators, it appeared that the court determined to compare the valuation of the relator’s parcel with that of other real property in immediate proximity thereto, and finding that the valuation of the relators’ property was unequal, in that it was made at a higher proportionate valuation than was made upon two other lots on the same street, adjoining the relators’ property on the south, reduced the valuation made by the assessors.
Sold, that the order should be affirmed. (Parker, J., dissenting.)
The strict rules respecting the admissions of testimony which are applicable to trials do not prevail in proceedings of this character.
People ex rel. PaiVroad Company v. Keator (36 Hun, 596) followed.
That an objection that the assessors should not have been made parties to the writ, because it appeared that they had completed their assessment-roll and delivered it to the comptroller of the city, could not be maintained.
That they should be permitted to appear and defend their own action and be heard upon the question as to which of the several judgments authorized by the act should be directed, in case relief should be awarded to the relators.
Appeal from a judgment of the Supreme Court entered in Rensselaer county, June 27, 1887, reducing assessments against two pieces of real property of the relators, from $60,500 to $40,000, and from $29,000 to $25,500, respectively, and directing that the amount of taxes paid in excess of the taxes on the corrected assessments be repaid, with interest.
The proceedings of the relators were instituted September 13> 1886, under chapter 269 of the Laws of 1880. One piece of property known as “ River View,” situated on the high bluff; east of the Hudson River railroad, in the city of Troy, was assessed for the year 1886 at $60,500. This assessment was reduced to $40,000, on the ground that the full value of the property was not over $40,000. The second portion consists of two houses and lots on Third street, assessed at $29,000, which was reduced to $25,500, on the ground that other property in the neighborhood was assessed at a lower proportionate valuation than that owned by the relators.
R. A. Pa/rmmb&r, for the appellants.
G. B. Wellington for the respondents.

Opinion:
Landon, P. J.:
The assessed valuation of the " River View " property was reduced by the Special Term because of overvaluation. The evidence tended to show and was sufficient to justify the finding that the property was valued upon the assessment-roll for much more than it was Worth. The order as to this property should be affirmed upon the merits. The valuation of the other parcel was reduced because it was unequal, in that it was made at a higher proportionate valuation than other real property upon the same roll. This was compared with two lots on the same side of the same street and adjoining it on the south. The evidence justified the finding that the relators' parcel compared with these two lots was overvalued.
In respect to proportionate valuation; to how wide a range the comparison shall extend, must obviously rest largely in the discretion of the court. It does not appear, nor do the defendants complain, that they did not have an opportunity to make as many comparisons as they thought would be instructive. The court after hearing all the evidence, decided to compare the valuation of the relator's parcel with that "of other real property in immediate proximity thereto." If the court had rejected comparison with such property and made it -with property in some distant part of the city, we should at least have looked for an explanation. We see no reason to doubt that the court acted judiciously and decided properly.
The defendants complain of rulings respecting the admission of testimony. We have held that the strict rules applicable to trials do not prevail in this kind of proceeding. (People ex rel. R. R. Co. v. Keator, 36 Hun, 596.) We have examined the exceptions urged by the defendants and do not think any error to their prejudice was committed.
It is objected that the assessors should not have been made par ties to the writ, .because-it appeared that they had completed their assessment-roll and delivered it to the comptroller of the city. The statute under which the proceeding is taken (Laws 1880, chap. 269), provides that "the writ shall not be granted unless application therefor shall be made within fifteen days after the completion and delivery of the assessment-roll, and notice thereof given as provided in this act." (Sec. 2.) The application was made within the time prescribed. The same section provides that the allowance of the writ shall not stay the proceedings of the assessors or other officers to whom it is directed. The court may order such assessment stricken from the roll or order a reassessment, or that it be corrected, .or that the amount of excessive tax paid by the relator be audited and allqwed him. (Secs. 4, 8.) It is plain that the assessors are proper parties to the writ. They should, be permitted to defend their own action; they may be required to correct it and they ought to be heard upon the question, which of the several judgments should be directed, in case relief is to be awarded to the relator. They are public officers and are not chargeable with costs in the first instance, unless "they acted with gross negligence, in bad faith or with malice."
The order or judgment should be affirmed, with ten dollars costs and printing disbursements.
Fish, J., concurred.