TaiLexi AI U.S. Case Law

People ex rel. Clark Henry Corp. v. Goldfogle

The People of the State of New York ex rel. Clark Henry Corporation v. Henry M. Goldfogle and Others, as Commissioners of Taxes and Assessments of the City of New York

People ex rel. Clark Henry Corp. v. Goldfogle, 226 A.D. 767 (1929)
Download
Format
Include

Star paging (*137) is kept for pin cites.

Court
Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · State Appellate Courts
Decided
April 15, 1929
Citations
226 A.D. 767

Opinion of the Court

Text extracted by OCR from a scanned original; check the original for exact wording.

Order modified by correcting and reducing the assessment to the sum of $250,000, and as so modified affirmed, without costs. We are of opinion that the new structure is a building within the purview of the provisions of section 889-a of the Greater New York Charter, † The one-story structure theretofore existing, upon which the new building was superimposed, was so insignificant in comparison *768 that it merged into the greater. It is conceded by the relator that to the land value of $200,000 there should be added $50,000, representing the then existing improvements. Findings of fact and conclusions of law inconsistent herewith are reversed and new findings and conclusions will be made. Lazansky, P. J.,' Young, Hagarty and Seeger, JJ., concur; Carswell, J., dissents and votes to reverse the order, dismiss the writ and confirm the original assessment, upon the ground that there is no proof of improvements in the new construction that would establish that it is usable as a complete unit or building apart and distinct from the old buildings to which it is attached, and, therefore, such new construction is not a building within the purview of the charter provision. Settle order on notice.

Laws of 1901, chap. 466, § 889-a, as added by Laws of 1913, chap. 324. Since amd. by Laws of 1928, chap. 688.— [Rep.

How later courts describe this case

No later court has written an explanatory parenthetical about this case yet.

Cited by 0 cases

No case in this database cites this case.

Authorities cited 0

No citations to other opinions in this database were found.

Keyboard shortcuts

/Focus the search box
j kNext / previous result
EnterOpen the selected result
xAdd / remove the selected result from the download list
n pNext / previous search term in a case
cCopy the citation of the current case
+ −Larger / smaller reading text
?Show this list