TaiLexi AI U.S. Case Law

Grey v. Board of Assessors

In the Matter of William Grey, against Board of Assessors of the Town of Bristol

Grey v. Bd. of Assessors, 14 Misc. 2d 858 (N.Y. Sup. Ct. 1958)
Download
Format
Include

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

Court
New York Supreme Court · State Trial Courts
Decided
December 19, 1958
Judges
Wither
Citations
14 Misc. 2d 858180 N.Y.S.2d 6071958 N.Y. Misc. LEXIS 2118

Opinion of the Court — Wither

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

G. Robert Wither, J.

In this proceeding under article 13 of the Tax Law and article 78 of the Civil Practice Act to review an assessment upon petitioner’s realty, objection is made by respondents Board of Assessors to the jurisdiction of the court, upon the ground that petitioner failed to file a statement under oath of his specifications of incorrect assessment. It appears that petitioner did file an unsworn statement with specifications of alleged incorrect assessment.

Section 27 of the Tax Law provides in part as follows: “ Such complainants shall file with the assessors a statement, under oath, specifying the respect in which the assessment complained of is incorrect, which statement must be made by the person assessed or whose property is assessed, or by some person authorized to make such statement, and who has knowledge of the facts stated therein. ’ ’ Compliance with this statutory provision is jurisdictional as a basis for review. (People ex rel. 2440 Concourse v. Miller, 178 Misc. 1038 , affd. 261 App. Div. 948 , motion *859 for leave to appeal denied 285 N. Y. 862 ; see People ex rel. Irving Trust Co. v. Miller, 264 App. Div. 270 ; People ex rel. Schwarz v. Miller, 281 N. Y. 554 ; People ex rel. 243 Corp. v. Miller, 284 N. Y. 150 ; 84 C. J. S., Taxation, § 535.)

The importance of the*particular statutory language is pointed up in People ex rel. 243 Corp. v. Miller ( 284 N. Y. 150 , supra) wherein the court held that since the New York City Charter provision under which the review was there sought did not require a signature or oath, and the writing filed showed who was the owner of the property, it was sufficient. In People ex rel. Irving Trust Co. v. Miller ( 264 App. Div. 270, 272 , supra) the court stated: ‘ ‘ The only things necessary to the exercise of jurisdiction are that within the time specified a complaint under oath in writing be presented stating the objection and the grounds thereof.”

Since petitioner did not comply with this statutory requirement, the motion to quash this proceeding, made upon the petition and answer upon the return date thereof, is granted.

Submit order accordingly.

How later courts describe this case

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

1981: 119812026peak 1981 · 1

Relies on it most ⓘ

  1. Mendick v. Sterling83 A.D.2d 749 (1981)

Most recent

  1. Mendick v. Sterling83 A.D.2d 749 (1981)

Citing references are not a citator: they show that a later opinion cites this case, not whether it followed, distinguished, or overruled it. Check negative history before relying on this case.

Authorities cited 5

DepthCaseCited by
People ex rel. Irving Trust Co. v. Miller, 264 A.D. 270 (1942) 8
People ex rel. 243 Corp. v. Miller, 29 N.E.2d 655 (N.Y. 1940) 3
People ex rel. Schwarz v. Miller, 24 N.E.2d 465 (N.Y. 1939) 6
People ex rel. 2440 Concourse, Inc. v. Miller, 261 A.D. 948 (1941) 4
People ex rel. 2440 Concourse, Inc. v. Miller, 178 Misc. 1038 (N.Y. Sup. Ct. 1940) 2

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