In re Hatch
Opinion of the Court
There was imposed upon certain real property of this relator an assessment for opening Naegle avenue, confirmed September 12, 1895, and entered October 3,1895, and an assessment for regulating Eleventh avenue, confirmed and entered on October 4, 1888. The . relator alleges that these assessments were duly ratified and confirmed. He has not paid these assessments, and now asks for a mandamus requiring the collector of assessments to receive payment without interest or advertising charges, and to mark the same as fully paid and satisfied upon the record of assessment lists confirmed of the city of New York. The relator thus wishes to avoid the payment of interest upon this assessment for over thirteen years upon the ground that the notice of the confirmation of the assessment was not published in the case of the Naegle avenue premises until the 22d day of October, 1895, nineteen days after the same was entered, and in the case of Eleventh avenue, until the 20th
It has been suggested that because the imposition of this interest is a penalty imposed upon the property owner for non-payment of the assessment, the statute must be strictly construed, and unless, its
It follows that the order appealed from should be reversed, with fifty dollars costs and disbursements, and the proceedings dismissed, with fifty dollars costs.
Van Brunt, P. J., Hatch and Laugelin, JJ., concurred; Patterson, J., dissented. .
Dissenting Opinion
(dissenting):
This is an appeal from an order granting a peremptory writ of mandamus to compel the collector of assessments and arrears of the city of Hew York to accept from the relator the amount of assessments levied’ upon his property, without the addition of interest upon such amount. The facts are that the relator owned real estate in the twelfth ward of the city of Hew York, upon- which two assessments were imposed, one for opening Haegle avenue from Kingsbridge road to Tenth avenue; that assessment was confirmed . September 12, 1895, and entered October 10, 1895. The other
It is very clear from the provision's of these two sections of the Consolidation Act, construed together, that interest upon an assessment for a local, public improvement is imposed as a penalty for the non-payment of that assessment, within a prescribed time. In order that such penalty may be lawfully inflicted, it is necessary that, all the requirements of law constituting conditions precedent to the imposition of that penalty shall be complied with. One of those requirements under the sections of the statute quoted is notice by publication to the property owner, and the requirement is absolute that that notification shall be immediate, which does not necessarily mean the same day or the next day, but it does mean so soon as possible after the confirmation of the assessment and its entry. The obvious purpose of this statute is to give to the person whose property is assessed for benefit notice that the assessment must be paid within sixty days after the date of the entry thereof, before interest can be added. This requirement is undoubtedly to give to the owner of the property a period of time considered to be ample for him to make provision for the payment of the assessment and the notice is a matter of right and is the only notice the property owner could receive because, by section 916, as above stated, all provisions of law or ordinances requiring any other or different notice of such assessments and interest thereon were repealed. The right' to impose interest depends upon a compliance with the law. The law was not complied with in the two assessments now under consideration. Interest does not accrue as upon a debt due by the property owner to the city, nor as upon an advance of money made by one acting as the trustee or agent for another, but it arises solely from the provision of the statute and only upon an observance of conditions precedent, and while the consequences to the city may be unfortunate, the proper construction of the statute requires that the writ should be affirmed, with costs.
Order reversed, with fifty dollars costs and disbursements, and proceedings dismissed, with fifty dollars costs.
Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.