People ex rel. Hamlin v. Lewis

Relator was the owner of five parcels of real property located in the city of Albany upon which she was assessed on the tax roll for the year 1933 as follows:

268 Washington avenue, land $6,000; total......................... $100 ,000

469 Ontario street, land 2,700; total......................... 7 ,700

471 Ontario street, land 1,250; total......................... 1,250

473 Ontario street, land 1,250; total......................... 1,250

101 Grove avenue, land 900; total......................... 5,000

$116,200

*656She petitioned for a writ of certiorari to review the assessments, a return was made, a referee to take proof and report was appointed. Upon the trial it was stipulated that “ the assessed valuation generally throughout the City of Albany is 88% of the actual value.” One of the city’s two witnesses on value testified that the aggregate of the assessments was $738 in excess of the actual value of the five parcels; the other city witness testified that the actual value of the five parcels was $98 more than the aggregate assessments. The counsel for the city concedes that each assessment should be reduced twelve per cent to place them on a parity with general city property. The referee reported the actual values of the property as follows: 268 Washington avenue, $65,000; 469 Ontario street, $6,000; 471 Ontario street, $850; 473 Ontario street, $850; 101 Grove avenue, $4,200; and fixed the assessed value at twelve per cent less than these amounts to make the assessments on a parity with property generally. The report recommended that the assessments be fixed at the following amounts:

268 Washington avenue......................................... $57 ,200

469 Ontario street............................................... 5 ,280

471 Ontario street.....'.......................................... 748

473 Ontario street............................................... 748

101 Grove avenue............................................... 3 ,696

The Special Term adopted the referee’s report in its decision and judgment. The evidence fully sustains the report and the order and judgment should be affirmed, with costs. Order and judgment unanimously affirmed, with costs. Present — Hill, P. J., Rhodes, McNamee, Bliss and Heffernan, JJ.