People ex rel. Douglas v. Van Nostrand — 53 N.Y. St. Rep. 855

Majority

p. 855

The People ex rel. William P. Douglas, App’lt, v. David L. Van Nostrand, Supervisor, et al., Assessors, Resp’ts.

(Supreme Court, General Term, Second Department,

Filed July 28, 1893.)

Headnote

Taxes—Assessment—Inequality.

Relator’s assessment was increased from $42,750 to $60,000 in 1891. In a proceeding to reduce on the ground of inequality his evidence tended to show that the premises were worth from $80,000 to $105,000, while the opposing testimony showed its value to be from $175,000 to $200,000, and it was shown to have increased fifty per cent in value between the two assessments. The parcels of land selected as basis of comparison were shown to be assessed higher in proportion to values than relator’s. Held, that no reason for a reduction was shown.

Appeal from order dismissing writ of certiorari to review an assessment of relator’s property.

Howard A. Sperry, for app’lt; B. W. Downing, for resp’ts.

The relator for some six years has been assessed for his lands in the town of Flushing, lying on Little Neck Bay, and consisting of about 175 acres of land, at the sum of $42,750. In 1891 the assessors raised the value as a basis of assessment to $60,000. This writ is brought to reduce the assessment on the ground that the assessment is unequal and proportionately higher than that on other real estate in the town. The relator’s witnesses testify that the value of the property is from $80,000 to $105,000. The defendants produce evidence that the value is $175,000, possibly $200,000. The proof shows that the property has risen in value fifty per cent between the assessment of 1890 and the one complained of in 1891. The relator selected certain parcels of land on the assessors’ books as a basis for the allegation of irregularity. The proof shows that these pieces are assessed higher in proportion to the values than the property of relator is. The proof entirely fails to show any reason for the reduction of the assessment. The order dismissing the writ should, therefore, be affirmed, with ten dollars costs, besides disbursements.

Dykman and Pratt, JJ., concur.