Kane v. City of Brooklyn — 15 N.Y. St. Rep. 872

Majority

p. 872

Edward Kane, App’lt, v. The City of Brooklyn et al., Resp’ts.

(Supreme Court, General Term, Second Department,

Filed May 14, 1888.)

Headnote

Assessment roll—Brooklyn city charter—Laws 1873, chap. 863, tit. 10, § 9—Oaths of assessors.

The Brooklyn city charter, Laws 1873, chapter 863, title 10, section 9, requires that an assessment roll for each ward shall be prepared by the assessors, and that it shall be duly sworn to by at least two of the assessors according to the oath provided by law in regard to assessment rolls in the different towns of the state, and to the effect that they have together personally examined within the year past each and every parcel of ia d, house, building or other assessable property. Held, that where all the assessors swore to the roll, and all swore that at least two of their number made the examination of each piece of land assessed within the year, the oath was sufficient; that it was not required that the assessors should state which two of them examined each lot.

Appeal from a judgment rendered by a special term in Kings county.

Wm. J. Gaynor, for app’lt; Almet F. Jenks, for resp’ts.

—Whatever appearance of incongruity is contained in the oaths taken by the assessors in this case is due to the law which prescribes its form.

p. 873

There are eight assessors in the city of Brooklyn. The assessments are made by wards, and the usual oath in towns is called for by chapter 863, Laws of 1873, title 10, section 9. The return further provides that the roll shall be sworn to by at least two of the assessors, and shall contain an additional clause that they have personally examined within the year past every lot of land assessed.

The oath must be taken by at least two, that they have examined the land. In this case all the assessors swore to the roll, and they all swore that at least two of the assessors made the examination of each piece of land assessed within the year. The form of the oath does not require the assessors to state which two assessors examined each lot together. That would be an endless task, nor did it provide that only two" should swear to the roll, which should be the two assessors who personally made the examination.

No special two were designated to make the oath or the examination. The oath conforms to the law.

It states that at least two assessors made the personal examination required.

It will bear the construction that all the assessors examined together every lot assessed, although the fact is expressed in the statute words if at least two of the assessors did so. The notice to review the assessment-roll and correct the same as to any person aggrieved, complied with the law. It is not the appraisal record of valuation which was to be corrected. These valuations went into the roll, and notice was given of the compilation of the roll, and fixing a day of hearing for persons claiming correction.

This was a substantial compliance with the request of the charter. Westfall v. Preston, 49 N. Y., 349 .

The essential requirement of the statute on making up of the roll and the notice of the completion, so that grievances may be presented and tried, was done. '

The statute does not, in terms, indicate how the unpaid taxes are to be returned by the collector to the register of arrears “on sheets corresponding in size and ruling,” which are to be bound. There is no apparent requirement for a certificate to the sheets so returned.

The notice of sale gives the correct ward, block and lot, numbers and all other inaccuracies are cured by chapter 405, Laws of 1885. The tax rolls were sufficiently signed. The warrant was annexed to them and signed by the supervisor, and this is all that is called for by chapter 246, Laws of 1878. The judgment should, tliererore, be affirmed with costs.

Dykman and Pratt, JJ., concur.