Majority
p. 138Eugene Van Voorhis, Respondent, v. County of Monroe, Appellant. Argued March 6, 1942; decided April 23, 1942.
p. 140The complaint should be dismissed for lack of jurisdiction. (People ex rel. Powder Co. v. Feitner, 41 App. Div. 544 ; People ex rel. Bliss v. Feitner, 72 App. Div. 45 ; Oak Hill Country Club v. Town of Pittsford, 264 N. Y. 133 .) The assessment has been properly levied and made a lien upon the whole parcel. (People ex rel. N. Y. C. & H. R. R. R. Co. v. Priest, 150 App. Div. 19 ; 206 N. Y. 274 ; People ex rel. Lehigh Valley R. R. Co. v. Burke, 221 App. Div. 248 ; People ex rel. Two Lakes Corp. v. Mathews, 151 Misc. Rep. 294 ; Matter of Wadhams, 249 App. Div. 271 ; People ex rel. Codd v. City of Buffalo, 122 Misc. Rep. 102 .) Neither the town nor county authorities had any jurisdiction to place an assessment upon the land outside the sewer district now owned by the plaintiff for the expense of the construction of the sewer. (Elmhurst Fire Co. v. City of New York, 213 N. Y. 87 ; Dun & Bradstreet, Inc., v. City of New York, 276 N. Y. 198 ; Stuart v. Palmer, 74 N. Y. 183 ; Norwood v. Baker, 172 U. S. 269 ; People ex rel. N. Y. C. R. R. Co. v. Limburg, 283 N. Y. 344 ; Matter of Long Island R. R. Co. v. Hylan, 240 N. Y. 199 ; Sharp v. Speir, 4 Hill, 76 ; Saranac Land & Timber Co. v. Roberts, 125 App. Div. 333 ; 195 N. Y. 303 ; Miller v. City of Oneida, 153 Misc. Rep. 438 .)
Harry Rosenberg for appellant.
Robert F. MacCameron for respondent.
The owner of real property may reasonably assume that it will not be affected by any assessment which may appear upon the assessment rolls of a district other than that in which his land is situated. The short period of limitation contained in section 239 of the Town Law (Cons. Laws, ch. 62) has no application to an assessment levied against real property appearing
p. 141
upon the assessment rolls of a district in which the property is not situated and levied by assessors with jurisdiction confined to such district. That was not the situation in Oak Hill Country Club v. Town of Pittsford ( 264 N. Y. 133 ) and in the cases therein cited.
The order should be affirmed and judgment absolute ordered against appellant on the stipulation, with costs in all courts.
Lehman, Ch. J., Loughran, Finch, Lewis and Desmond, JJ., concur; Rippisy and Conway, JJ., taking no part.
Ordered accordingly.
Cases cited
- People ex rel. Bliss v. Feitner 72 App. Div. 45 p. 140
- Oak Hill Country Club v. Town of Pittsford 264 N. Y. 133 p. 140, p. 141
- People ex rel. v. New York Central & Hudson River Railroad 206 N. Y. 274 p. 140
- Elmhurst Fire Co. v. City of New York 213 N. Y. 87 p. 140
- Dun & Bradstreet, Inc. v. City of New York 276 N. Y. 198 p. 140
- Stuart v. Palmer 74 N. Y. 183 p. 140
- Norwood v. Baker 172 U. S. 269 p. 140
- People ex rel. New York Central Railroad v. Limburg 283 N. Y. 344 p. 140
- Long Island Railroad v. Hylan 240 N. Y. 199 p. 140
- Saranac Land & Timber Co. v. Roberts 195 N. Y. 303 p. 140