Study aid, not legal advice. caselaw is not a law firm and does not provide legal advice or engage in the unauthorized practice of law (UPL). All briefs, outlines, and citation tools on these pages are educational summaries for law students; they are not a substitute for advice from a licensed attorney admitted in your jurisdiction. Bar-admission rules vary by state. For court filings or client matters, verify every authority against the official reporter and your court's local rules. Use of caselaw does not create an attorney-client relationship.
The People of the State of New York ex rel. The Broadway Realty Company, Respondent, v. Thomas L. Feitner et al., as Commissioners of Taxes and Assessments of the City of New York, Appellants, 1901 — 168 N.Y. 661 · caselaw · US
Corporations
The People of the State of New York ex rel. The Broadway Realty Company, Respondent, v. Thomas L. Feitner et al., as Commissioners of Taxes and Assessments of the City of New York, Appellants
168 N.Y. 661·New York Court of Appeals·1901·NY
Brief incoming
Hand-reviewed Bluebook brief (procedural posture, facts, issue, holding, reasoning, dissent) ships once the AI generation pipeline runs through this case. Join the waitlist to get notified when 1L briefs go live.
Opinion
The People of the State of New York ex rel. The Broadway Realty Company, Respondent, v. Thomas L. Feitner et al., as Commissioners of Taxes and Assessments of the City of New York, Appellants.
People ex rel. Broadway Bealty Oo. v. Feitner, 61 App. Div. 156, affirmed.
(Argued October 3, 1901;
decided November 12, 1901.)
Appeal, by permission, from an order of the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court in the first judicial department, entered May 23, 1901, which affirmed an order of Special Term denying a motion to quash a wilt of certiorari to review the action of the defendants in assessing certain real estate belonging to the relator and granting relator’s motion for the appointment of a referee.
The following is the question certified: “ Did the facts alleged in the petition and the writ of certiorari granted thereon with the return thereto require the court to entertain the proceeding for a review of the assessment of the property described in the petition, belonging to the relator, and to appoint a referee to take testimony therein ? ”
John Whalen, Corporation Counsel (James If. Ward of counsel), for appellants.
Albert G. Milbcmk and George I. Nichols for respondent.
[MAJORITY]
Order affirmed, with costs, on prevailing opinion below, and question certified answered in the affirmative.
Concur: Parker, Ch. J., O’Brien, Bartlett, Haight, Martin, Yann and Landón, JJ.