People ex rel. Witthaus v. O'Donnell 46 Misc. 519

The People of the State of New York ex rel. Guy Witthaus, Relator, v. Frank A. O’Donnell et al., as Commissioners of Taxes and Assessments of the City of New York.

(Supreme Court, New York Special Term,

March, 1905.)

Tax Law, § 253 — Certiorari to review for inequality — Motion to quash.

Where upon certiorari to review an assessment, under section 253 of the Tax Law, it appears that upon the relator’s application to the tax commissioners for a reduction of the tax upon Ms property, but one instance of alleged inequality was set forth, the writ will be quashed on motion.

Relator was the owner of certain real property, Nos. 15 to 19 West Fourth street, borough of Manhattan, city of *520Hew York, assessed for taxation for the year 1904, at the sum of $340,000. While the hooks in the office of the commissioners of taxes and assessments were open for correction he submitted the following application:

“ Hew Yobk, March 2977t, 1904.

“ Commissioners oe Taxes anb Assessments, Borough of Manhattan, Ciiy of New York:

“ Gentlemen.— I beg to call yoúr attention to a discrepancy in the valuation of Ho. 8 Washington Place and 15, 17 and 19 West Fourth street, and herewith protest, as incorrect, against the valuation of the latter, viz.: 15/19 W. 4th St., which is my property. The two buildings, 8 Washington- Place and 15/19 W. 4th St. form in reality, only one building, belonging to two owners. Whilst the northerly portion Ho. 8 Washington Place, being in a better location on account of northerly light, was assessed last year and,this year at $180,000,— the southerly portion Ho. 15/19 W. 4th St. was and is assessed at $340,000.

“ Taking the correct dimensions of the buildings as the floor area of each portion into consideration the correct valuation of 15, 17 and 19 W. 4th St. should be only $297,-000.— and I herewith respectfully ask you to reduce the valuation of said 15, 17 and 19 West 4th St. to the latter figure of $297,000.”

The petition averred that the property of the relator had been assessed at a higher proportionate valuation than that of other properties in the same tax district and higher than other property in the borough of Manhattan, city of Hew York.

Motion was made to quash or supersede the writ on the ground that the application made to the tax commissioners was wholly insufficient to raise the question of the inequality of the assessment as compared with property generally either throughout the city of Hew York or in that tax district.

John J. Delany, corporation counsel (George S. Coleman and E. Crosby Kindleberger, of counsel), for motion.

Francis X. Butler, for relator.