Hyperlawhypertext legal databasebeta City of New York v. Sanford 11 N.Y.2d 920

← Cases

City of New York v. Sanford

11 N.Y.2d 920 Court N.Y. Decision date 1962-04-26 English

Decision Majority · Dissent — Fboessel, J. (dissenting).

Contents
p. 920
In the Matter of the City of New York, Respondent, v. Roswell. R. Sanford et al., Constituting the Board of Assessors of the Village of Margaretville, Appellants.
Argued April 2, 1962;
decided April 26, 1962.
p. 922
Abraham Streifer and Herman E. Gottfried for appellants.
Leo A. Larkin, Corporation Counsel (William A. Kaercher, Seymour B. Quel and Theodore R. Lee of counsel) for respondent.

Concur: Chief Judge Desmond and Judges Dye, Fuld, Van Vookhis, Burke and Foster. Judge Fboessel dissents and votes to modify the order in the following memorandum.

I would agree for affirmance except with respect to the fourth affirmative defense. While ordinarily the only question in a tax certiorari proceeding is whether the tax assessment is valid (People ex rel. Ambroad Equities v. Miller, 289 N. Y. 339 , 342; People ex rel. Bingham Operating Corp. v. Eyrich, 265 App. Div. 562 ), the right to exemption here is expressly based on a contract between respondents and the Village of Margaretville (Real Property Tax Law, § 406, subd. 3), which contract appellants claim was duly rescinded by the village. Surely we may not permit the City of New York to rely on a contract and deny respondents the right to establish it was rescinded by reason of fraud in its inception. Accordingly I would modify the order appealed from by holding that the fourth affirmative defense is sufficient in law; and except as so modified I would affirm.

Order affirmed, etc.

Cases cited