Majority
Headnote
The act of 1865 (Chap. 453, Laws of 1865), providing, where property has been omitted in an assessment-roll, for its assessment and taxation for the omitted year, in the year next succeeding, is to be construed in connection with the general system of taxation of which it forms a part, and so is not subject to the constitutional objection that it does not provide for notice or a hearing.The relator was a corporation, to which the law of 1880 (Chap. 542) applied, and liable to taxation under its provisions. The assessors of Brooklyn, through an erroneous construction of the law (People, ex rel. Westchester Fire Ins. Co., v. Davenport, 91 N. Y. 574 ), treated the relator as exempt from taxation for city and county purposes upon its personal property for the year 1880 and omitted to assess it. In 1881 the mistake was discovered; the relator was assessed for that year, and in addition for the omitted year under the provisions of the act of 1865 (Chap. 453). The relator sued out a writ of certiorari to test the validity of that assessment. The only open questions are the construction of the act of 1865, and its constitutionality. By the first section the assessors are required to enter the omitted property at the valuation of the year of omission, or, if not then valued, at the valuation of the preceding year, and in a separate line on the roll, upon the application of any three tax payers. Then section second provides that the board of supervisors, on the petition of the assessors, “ shall proceed to levy a tax on the same at the rate per cent of tax imposed upon land or property in said town, city or ward in the preceding year.” It is now claimed that these provisions cannot be adjusted to the new legislation; that the relator having already paid the State tax of 1880 must be assessed at the rate per cent of that year or not at all; and since such rate per cent was founded on an aggregate which included the State tax, it is impossible to apply it to a case in which the State tax cannot be included because it has been paid. The difficulty does not seem to us serious.. The rate per cent of 1880 consisted really of three several rates per cent, one for the city, one for the county, and one for the State, aggregated for convenience, hut easily separable whenever
The constitutional objection raised to the act of 1865 is that it does not provide for notice or a hearing. It, must be read and construed in connection with the general system of which it forms a part. If the property was valued in 1880 there was notice and opportunity to be heard provided by the law. If not then valued the assessors are required to enter the valuation of the preceding year. That, of course, was made upon notice. But the valuation of 1879 might not be identical with the proper value of 1880. Still, notice was required to be given in 1881. "We must assume it was given. It warned everybody that the assessors had finished their rolls and they were open for examination. It was the privilege and the duty of this relator to see what they had done and object if any thing was wrong. As matter of fact the notice was given. It was specific and particular. It called attention to the taxes of both years. It does not appear that any objection was made to the valuation as applied to 1880. Probably the value in that year was greater than in 1879, and if so, the relator was certainly not harmed. The statute provided for notice ; it was given; and no objection was made to the valuation. If it had been, a question might have been raised as to the right of the assessors to make a correction according to the facts shown. Even if they could not, if their duty to enter the property at a fixed valuation taken from a previous assessment-roll, was not only purely ministerial (People, ex rel. Oswald, v. Goff, 52 N. Y. 434 ), but so fixed and absolute as to exclude correction, which may be doubted, still the requirement of notice would not be violated
The judgment should be affirmed, with costs, not exceeding $50 and disbursements.
All concur.
Judgment affirmed.
Cases cited
- People ex rel. Oswald v. Goff 52 N. Y. 434 p. 430, p. 431, p. 432
- People ex rel. Westchester Fire Insurance v. Davenport 91 N. Y. 574 p. 431