The People of the State of New York ex rel. Edison Electric Illuminating Company of Brooklyn, Appellant, v. Thomas L. Feitner and Others, as Commissioners of Taxes and Assessments of the City of New York, Respondents

The People of the State of New York ex rel. Edison Electric Illuminating Company of Brooklyn, Appellant, v. Thomas L. Feitner and Others, as Commissioners of Taxes and Assessments of the City of New York, Respondents. What statement, filed by an electric illuminating company with tax commissioners, is sufficient to present the questions of overvaluation and of inequality of assessment of its plant. An application made by an electric illuminating corporation to the commissioners of taxes and assessments of the city of New York for a reduction of the assessment levied upon its real estate, which consisted of foundations; substructures; superstructures, conduits, pipes, wires, cables and connections in the borough of Brooklyn, stated as follows: “ It finds that the same has been assessed on the assessment roll of 1899 at a valuation of nine hundred and five thousand dollars (§905,000), whereas the same should not have been, in its judgment, valued at more than five hundred thousand dollars (§500,000) to be in proportion to the assessed value of similar property, and in accordance with the fair marketable value thereof. “The said system, comprising the electric system of distribution of your petitioner, whereby it distributes electric light and power throughout the said borough, is being superseded by different systems of electric distribution. The entire system has been deteriorated and damaged by the'action of stray currents . in the ground not owned or controlled by your petitioner, causing a deterioration in the said system by a process known as electrolysis; much of the system has-been in the ground for many years, and is worth but a part of its original cost; the present cost price of similar material is much less at the present time than it was when said system was put in.” ■Held, that the application was sufficiently broad to present to the commissioners the questions of-overvaluation and of-inequality of assessment. Van Brunt, P. J., dissented. Appeal by the relator, the Edison Electric Illuminating Company of Brooklyn, from an order of the Supreme Court, made at the New York Special Term and entered in the office of the clerk of the county of New York on the 14th day of January, 1903, dismissing the writ of certiorari granted herein, which sought to review the action of the commissioners of taxes and assessments in assessing the valuation of real estate. The relator filed with the tax commissioners of the city of New York on the 29th day of April, 1899, an application in.writing.asking that the amount of the assessments for the year 1899 upon the real estate of the relator, consisting of foundations, substructures, superstructures, conduits, pipes, wires, cables and connections in the borough of Brooklyn, which had been previously assessed for that year by the commissioners at $905,000, be reduced to the sum of $500,000. The application to the commissioners was as follows: “ To the Commissioners of Taxes, and Assessments: “ The undersigned, the Edison Electric Illuminating Company of Brooklyn, represents that it is the owner of real estate in various parts of the Borough of Brooklyn, consisting of foundations, substructures, super-structures, conduits, pipes, wires, cables and connections of the said Company. It finds that the same has been assessed on the assessment roll of 1899 at - a valuation of nine hundred and five thousand dollars ($905,000), whereas the same should not have been, in its judgment, valued at more than five hundred thousand dollars ($500,000) to be in proportion to the assessed value of similar property, and in accordance with the fair marketable value thereof. “ The said system, comprising the electric system of distribution of your petitioner, whereby it distributes electric light and power throughout the said borough, is being superseded by different systems of electric distribution. The entire system has been deteriorated and damaged by the action of stray currents in the ground not owned or controlled by your petitioner, causing a deterioration in the said system by a process known as electrolysis; much of the "system has been in the ground for many years, and is worth but a part of its original cost; the present cost price of similar material is much less at the present time than it was when said system was put in. “ Tour petitioner, therefore, asks that the said assessment may be reduced to the amount stated. “ Dated, Brooklyn, City of New York, April 29, 1899. “ EDISON ELECTRIC ILLUMINATING COMPANY . OF BROOKLYN, “ By Royal C. Peabody, “ Vice-President.” This was .the only application submitted on behalf of the relator with respect to said assessment, and no evidence -was offered in support thereof. The assessment was confirmed at $905,000, and on the 14th day of July, 1899, a writ of certiorari was issued to review the action of the commissioners. The controversy turns upon the sufficiency of the application above set forth. .Charles A. Collin, for the appellant. George S. Coleman, for the respondents. [MAJORITY — Hatch, J.:] Hatch, J.: There is not only a division in this court upon the question presented by this appeal, but the opinions and decisions which have been delivered from time to time respecting the subject-matter are not easy of reconciliation either in this court or in the Court of Appeals. I am not able to see any substantial difference between the application of the appellant to the commissioners of taxes and assessments for a reduction of its assessment in this case and the application which was considered in People ex rel. Broadway Improvement Co. v. Barker. (14 App. Div. 412), and in People ex rel. Sutphen v. Feitner (45 id. 542). The doctrine of the last case, however, was applied in People ex rel. Zollikoffer v. Feitner (63 id. 615), and this casé upon appeal to the Court of Appeals was affirmed without opinion (168 N. Y. 674). The- distinction between the application in the Zolliltoffer case and in the Sutphen case is not apparent, and ■as the Court of Appeals affirmed the holding in the former case, it would seem to follow that the Sutphen case was correctly decided. Such was the view of this court, as expressed in People ex rel. Grewood v. Feitner (77 App. Div. 428). In People ex rel. Bronx Gas Co. v. Feitner (43 id. 198), the application was held to be good, although its terms were scarcely broader than in the Sutphen case.. It was in ■ one aspect, however, distinguishable therefrom, as is pointed out in the opinion in the latter case, and also by the learned court below in its decision in the present case. In People ex rel. Broadway Realty Co. v. Feitner (61 App. Div. 156) the application is in substance, and almost in language, like the application in the present case. Therein this court held that such application was sufficiently broad to present to the commissioners the questions of overvaluation and inequality. Upon appeal to the Court of Appeals the order was affirmed on the prevailing opinion delivered in this court (168 N. Y. 661). The question, therefore, presented by this appeal is no longer one of construction of the statute (Laws of 1897, chap. 378, §§ 895, 906) and of the application thereunder, but has become one of authority. As the last decision of the Court of Appeals, involving the question now before us, upheld and sustained the application as being sufficient to raise the questions of overvaluation and inequality of the assessment, we must now hold that the present application, which is in substance the same as was considered in the last decision, is also sufficient in statement. It follows, therefore, that the order appealed from should be reversed, with ten dollars costs and disbursements, and that a rehearing be had under the writ. O’Brien, Ingraham and McLaughlin, JJ., concurred; Van Brunt, P. J., dissented. Order reversed, with ten dollars costs and disbursements," and rehearing ordered.