People Ex Rel. Manhattan Square Beresford, Inc. v. Sexton
Cases that cite this one
37 later published cases cite this decision. The 25 that cite it most often are listed here.
- Texas-Empire Pipe Line Co. v. Commissioner of Int. Rev. (10th Cir. 1942)
- ITT World Communications, Inc v. County of Santa Clara (Cal. Ct. App. 1980)
- Grossman v. Board of Trustees (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 1974)
- In re Huie (N.Y. 1956)
- Staten Island Edison Corp. v. Moore (New York Supreme Court 1955)
- Stevens v. Near (New York Supreme Court 1952)
- People ex rel. Hotel St. George Corp. v. Lilly (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 1944)
- People Ex Rel. Parklin Operating Corp. v. Miller (N.Y. 1941)
- Carroll v. Assessor of the City (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2009)
- Long Island Lighting Co. v. Assessor of Brookhaven (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 1998)
- County Dollar Corp. v. City of Yonkers (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 1983)
- Colonie Hill, Ltd. v. Boncore (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 1982)
- Great Atlantic & Pacific Tea Co. v. Kiernan (N.Y. 1977)
- Shereff v. Tax Commission (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 1973)
- Westbury Drive-In v. Board of Assessors (New York Supreme Court 1972)
- Celwyn Co. v. Board of Assessors (New York Supreme Court 1971)
- Roosevelt Nassau Operating Corp. v. Board of Assessors (New York Supreme Court 1970)
- Tilsac Corp. v. Assessor of Huntington (New York Supreme Court 1967)
- Peck v. Pelcher (New York Supreme Court 1967)
- Federated Department Stores, Inc. v. Podeyn (New York Supreme Court 1966)
- Hilton Inns, Inc. v. Board of Assessors of Tarrytown (New York Supreme Court 1963)
- People ex rel. Gale v. Tax Commission (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 1962)
- In re City of New York (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 1961)
- 860 Fifth Avenue Corp. v. Tax Commission (N.Y. 1960)
- In re the City of New York (New York Supreme Court 1959)
This list shows which later cases cite this one. It does not say how they treated it, and no review of that has been done. Not a substitute for Shepard’s or KeyCite — verify before relying.
Opinion of the Court
There is presented an appeal by relator from an order of the Appellate Division, first department, which modified orders of Special Term in three tax certiorari proceedings for the years 1932, 1933 and 1934, and a cross-appeal from the order of modification which reduced the assessed values below the amounts fixed by Special Term. The issue is solely as to the value of the building which is a twenty-story apartment house. The reduced values were based upon a valuation arrived at by capitalization of potential income and substantially exceeded the reconstruction cost less depreciation as testified to by relator’s . uncontradicted expert witness, who had a large and varied experience for upwards of twenty years in building construction. In adopting that method of valuation reliance *149 was placed entirely upon the testimony of a witness who-confessed that he could not and did not figure reconstruction cost less depreciation in reaching his conclusions.
In assessing an improvement upon real estate for tax purposes the maximum value which ordinarily may be placed upon it is reconstruction cost less depreciation. The value of the improvement arrived at by capitalization of potential or actual income may well be weighed and considered but if it be more than reconstruction cost less depreciation, at least in the absence of extraordinary circumstances not present here, the latter still remains the maximum value which may be assessed upon the property.
(People ex rel. D.,L. & W. R. R. Co. v. Clapp, 152 N. Y. 490; People ex rel. Equitable Office Bldg. Corp. v. Cantor, N. Y. L. J. July 9, 1921, p. 1225; affd., 207 N. Y. Supp. [App. Div. First Dept.] 899; People ex rel. N. Y. C. R. R. Co. v. State Tax Commission, 206 App. Div. 558; affd., 237 N. Y. 612; People ex rel. N. Y. Stock Exchange Bldg. Co. v. Cantor, 221 App. Div. 193; affd., 248 N. Y. 533; People ex rel. Hotel Astor v. Sexton, 159 Misc. Rep. 280; affd., 256 App. Div. 912; leave to appeal denied, 280 N. Y. 853.)
The values arrived at here exceeded so materially the uncontradicted proof as to the reconstruction cost of the building less depreciation that they, of necessity, indicate that the court failed to give effect to the limitation indicated. That was error as a matter of law.
In each proceeding the order should be reversed, with costs in all courts to the relator, and the proceedings remitted to the Special Term to proceed in accordance with this opinion. (See 284 N. Y. 737.)
Lehman, Ch. J., Loughran, Finch, Rippet, Sears and Lewis, JJ., concur.
Ordered accordingly.
Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.