People ex rel. Fiske v. Feitner

95 A.D. 217, 88 N.Y.S. 694
Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York·Decided July 1, 1904·Published·Cited by 4 cases

Opinion

Willard Bartlett, J.:

Inequality ás a ground for relief by certiorari under the Tax Law (Laws of' 1896, chap. 908, § 250 et.seq.) must be something more than a valuation disproportionate- to that placed upon a few other pieces of property in the same vicinity. This is the most that the ■ proof in behalf of the relators can be held to have established- in the present case. If one’s own assessment “is not out of proportion as compared with valuations generally on the same roll, it is immaterial that somemne neighbor is assessed too little and another too much.” (Cooley Taxn. [2d ed.] 410.) This doctrine has been adopted by the Court of Appeals in construing chapter 269 of the Laws of 1880 from which the certiorari provisions of the present Tax Law are -derived. (People ex rel. Warren v. Carter, 109 N. Y. 576, 581; People ex rel. Allen v. Badgley, 138 id. 314, 317.) It is fatal to the case of the, appellants. .

Moreover, I agree with the-opinion expressed by Mr. Justice Gaynor at Special Term that the comparison made by the relators is with property not in the same circumstances or category with their own.

The order should be affirmed.

All concurred.

Order affirmed, with ten dollars costs and disbursements.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

People ex rel. Fiske v. Feitner, 95 A.D. 217, 88 N.Y.S. 694 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1904).

95 A.D. 217 (People ex rel. Fiske v. Feitner) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

People ex rel. Two Lakes Corp. v. Mathews
151 Misc. 294 (New York Supreme Court, 1934)
People ex rel. Szerlip v. Goldfogle
118 Misc. 8 (New York Supreme Court, 1922)
People Ex Rel. Ward v. . Sutton
130 N.E. 570 (New York Court of Appeals, 1921)
People ex rel. Hudson v. State Board of Tax Commissioners
143 A.D. 26 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1911)