*1 KEARNY, APPELLANT, TAX OF v. DIVISION OF TOWN THE TREASURY THE DEPARTMENT OF IN APPEALS AL., ET RESPONDENT. January 14, April 8, Argued 1957. 1957 Decided the cause for appellant. Mr. Robert J. McCurrie argued the respondent the cause for Mr. Leo Rosenblum argued Jr., Tumulty, A. attorney). James Jersey City City (Mr. F. the cause for respondent Mr. John Crane argued Richman, Jr., C. Tax Grover Appeals (Mr. Division of Mr. Thomas P. Nolan on brief). attorney; the reasons The is affirmed for judgment Pee Curiam. in the below. in the court opinion expressed in the concur holding J. (concurring). sales-assessment ratio data have Division that the Appellate ordained aggregates utility practical inter-municipal as a means of sharing R. S. and that county burden of government; economic achieve a here used served to reason the sales-ratio studies The self-same to that end. formula measure of equality able within the County, all other municipalities was applied conditions; and there is no basis for like that consideration of sale prices the tendered hypothesis the test period of residence ratio,” distort the as “necessarily including “true value.” There is no showing excess variations due to abnormal circumstances avert unfairness. adjustment inter-municipal calling made that the same It is a fair on the record presumption and the overall elsewhere in the County, obtain *2 in the apportion- ratio does work substantial inequity ment the tax There was parity of burden. the several municipalities. between criticism seem be substance to the there would the industrial and commercial properties, inclusion of residences four-family houses and more

in the sales-ratio process the one tends to unbalance category the the of and subvert burden principle of'equality R. S. the of design statutory provision, an the ratio for table equalization according “general are assessments of full value” at which are and industries throughout made. There varied areas, and, the for want State, concentration many number sales in that in sufficient of of properties category, true value is all, or none at the ratio of assessed to largely with which determined sales of other real properties one industrial Here, only are classified. for example, a at study had been sold during period, property of 86.4%, for an assessment-sales ratio making the sales of commercial sales ratio was reduced to 51.93% houses residences and apartment properties number; and the 135 in same placed category, in Kearny industrial properties is that thereby visited undervalued and so it has been have been greatly the cost of share of substantially disproportionate with a county government. constitute It is shown that industrial properties 52% the 69 million ratables, 36 million dollars of 1955; assessors by Kearny’s

dollars reported was set for vacant a ratio of the final calculation 55.64% sales, and a 133 land, based upon 38.92% sales; on families), to four (up properties these ratios are assigned it is said that since respective class and residence properties to vacant lands understand the sales ratio of why “it is difficult to 86.4% be unquestioned should not also property as to when in the identical manner all three are calculated material, based actual namely, on same and, a while such given period,” categorization in munici- all may “with others” properties insignificant “where industrial do not so palities play of industrial in the tax part picture,” Kearny segregation for a just to secure a ratio requisite making distribution of burden.

There is virtue in the classification of obvious need and it becomes an properties; imperative course contrary where circumstances the statutory ratio that would undo case serves to burden. policy Division, illustrate the for the point. Judge Clapp, Appellate the fourth into that “a suggests breaking up if, as would serve to minimize error *3 separate categories at a industrial are assessed higher alleged, to their value or apartment than commercial properties be, houses,” stratification,” if need so also “further but it was found that there was “no sufficient proof assurance that valuations of industrial Kearny are assessed at a by substantially greater percentage true than value commercial properties houses,” and it was not shown that an result was “arbitrary it reached” Division “when refused to by State for industrial properties.” There is no indication that the industrial properties are assessed at a ratio of true value greater commercial houses and properties, apartment nor residences also within the fourth comprised category; it that the classification is contended served, when related to the to be legislative policy that it minimizes the sale of save effect of one unduly 1953, sale, made in property. single cannot be controlling significance inquiry, itself would thwart the end be to served. refers to matters of offered this one sale is not indicative Kearny suggesting Moreover, the sales value there properties. of its relation of reason to believe good to the whole is not to Kearny; ratables peculiar there are elsewhere in the comparable County. The case sales-ratio to detriment arbitrary has not been made out.

The sales-ratio is evidential on this process inquiry, fact, se conclusive either in law or to the per exclusion contra; of all else. There is no contention nor could there reason. All other relevant evidence is admissible. good The State Division here “felt that tables promulgated [the] under the Director 1954 act should be an in its review the consideration table for the 1955”; but this “did not year preclude Division from due consideration to other evidence and giving Director’s actions insofar as prior subsequent reflect on the table review or furnish might support or corroboration of other information and evidence submitted.” in the affirmance join judgment. J., in result.

Hei-ier, concurring For Justice and Justices Vanderbilt, affirmance —Chief Wacheneeld, Burling, Jacobs and Weintraubi —6. For reversal —None.