179 A.D. 748 | N.Y. App. Div. | 1917
Lead Opinion
The relator seeks to review by certiorari the assessment of its real estate in the city of New York for purposes of taxation in the year 1917.
The objection taken to the petition is that it seeks to review the assessment for illegality, whereas conceding that the erroneous item of value was included in the assessment to be reviewed, that error resulted only in producing an “ overvaluation,” and did not render the assessment " illegal.”
Section 290 et seq. of the Tax Law (as amd. by Laws of 1916, chap. 323), as well as section 906 of the Greater New York charter (Laws of 1901, chap. 466, as amd. by Laws of 1911, chap. 455), provide that any person claiming to be aggrieved by any assessment may seek relief through a writ of certiorari upon either one of three grounds: First, for illegality, in which case the grounds of the alleged illegality must be stated; second, for overvaluation, in which case the extent of the overvaluation must be stated; third, for inequality, in which case facts showing the inequality must be stated. The judgment to be awarded if the petitioner establishes his claim is, in case the assessment is found to be “ illegal,” that it shall be stricken from the roll, in which case the property would remain unassessed for any sum, and in case it is “ erroneous ” for overvaluation or inequality that a reassessment be made or the roll be corrected, in which case the property will remain assessed at the proper valuation. (Tax Law, § 293, as amd. by Laws of 1916, chap. 323.)
The distinction, therefore, between a review by certiorari on the ground of “ illegality,” and a review on the ground of an error by reason of “ overvaluation ” is very substantial, both as to the facts to be alleged in the petition and as to the judgment to be entered if the facts are established. This distinction has repeatedly been recognized by judicial decisions. In Matter of New York, Ontario & Western R. Co. (155 App. Div. 866) the Appellate Division in the Third Department pointed it out with great clearness as follows: “ The dis
“ Concededly the assessors had jurisdiction of both the relator and of its real property situated within the limits of Centerville Station. * * * Adopting an improper method of determining the value of relator’s property, assessing it at a higher proportionate valuation than other, property on the roll, or omitting to assess personal property of which the assessors may have had knowledge, would render the assessment unequal and erroneous, but would not render the assessment illegal.”
In the case at bar the application is distinctly based upon an allegation that the assessment complained of is “ illegal,” said illegality consisting, as is alleged, in the inclusion of the value of the uncompleted.building in the assessed valuation of the real estate. There is no statement in the petition, such as is essential in an alleged case of overvaluation, of the extent of such overvaluation. The proceeding is clearly one for review on the ground of “ illegality,” and not on the ground of “ overvaluation.”
That the tax commissioners had jurisdiction to assess the real estate in question cannot be doubted. Hence it cannot be said to be “ illegal.” At the most the assessment was erroneous because in assessing the value of the real estate the tax commissioners included an element of value which should have been excluded, to wit, the unfinished building. (Greater New York Charter, § 889a, added thereto by Laws of 1913, chap. 324.) This was error, not illegality, in .the sense in which the word “ illegal ” is used in the Tax Law.
The relator urges that the inclusion in the assessment of the value of the building can be assailed upon a petition for illegality, because the commissioners are now required to set down the assessed value of each parcel of real estate in two columns, the first of which shall contain the sum for which, in the opinion of the commissioners, the parcel “ under
It may be that in certain cases an error such as the petitioner complains of here, has been corrected upon a petition alleging only “ illegality,” but in none of those cases was the question of the sufficiency of the petition raised, as here by a motion to quash, nor is the question we have discussed either argued or considered. So far as we can ascertain it is now presented for the first time in an appellate court.
The order appealed from is affirmed, with ten dollars costs and disbursements.
Clarke, P. J., and Dowling, J., concurred; Smith and Page, JJ., dissented.
Dissenting Opinion
In my opinion the facts, admitted to be true, in so far as this appeal is concerned, show an illegal assessment and not an
In the instant case the deputy assessors assessed the relator’s real estate unimproved $120,000 and with improvements thereon $635,000, and it was thus entered upon the “ Annual record of assessed valuation of real and personal estate of the Borough of Manhattan.” During the period provided therefor the relator duly made his claim that the assessment was illegal on the ground that the assessment was placed upon improvements which consisted of a building, in course of construction, commenced since the preceding first day of October, and not ready for occupancy on the 1st day of October, 1916, and, therefore, the assessment thereof was prohibited by section 889a of the Greater New York charter.
The majority opinion limits the .meaning of the word “ illegal ” in section 906 of the Greater New York charter (which authorizes certiorari proceedings) to apply only to an act void for want of jurisdiction; or in other words to an act not authorized by law, and holds that it cannot apply to an act done in contravention of an express statutory prohibition, but that such an act is “ erroneous.” It seems to me that this is not a technical construction of the statute but one that does violence to the plain meaning of the English language. An act beyond the jurisdiction of the board is an illegal act, but it does not follow that it cannot do an illegal act within its jurisdiction.
An act prohibited by law is an illegal act. Thus when the building upon this parcel of land was assessed, the assessors did an act that they were expressly prohibited from doing. In my opinion the act of the assessors cannot be deemed an “ overvaluation ” for that presupposes a proper valuation which has been exceeded. It may be the fact, and probably is, that the building that improves this parcel of land is of the value at which it is assessed. The law says that it has no value for taxation purposes; that such a building is not an improvement that can be taken into consideration. For the purposes of taxation it does not exist.
Smith, J., concurred.
Order affirmed, with ten dollars costs and disbursements.