
    THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK ex rel. MILLARD F. SMITH and others, Resp’ts, v. THE BOARD OF ASSESSORS OF THE CITY OF BROOKLYN, App’lt.
    Taxes and assessment—When reduction of value at which property IS APPRAISED WILL BE UPHELD.
    
      H. D. Birdsall, for resp’ts; A. F. Jenks, corporation counsel, for app’lt.
   Dykman, J.

This was a proceeding under chapter 369 of the Laws of 18S0, providing for the review and correction of an illegal and erroneous or unequal assessment. After the return of the writ of certiorari was made, it was referred to a let'eree to take proof of all the material matters alleged in the petition and return, and report the same to the court with his opinion thereon. The referee heard the testimony and made a report in which he found: First. That the assessment made upon the real property described in the petition was erroneous by reason of over valuation; and second, that such assessment was unequal, in that the same was made at a higher proportionate valuation than other real property on the same roll, by the same officers designated in the several exhibits in this matter, and at the same proportionate valuation as said other real property would be, not exceeding $100,000, and said assessment to secure equality of assessment, should be reduced to a sum not exceeding $100,000. Upon that proceeding a judgment was entered by the court at special term in which it was ordered and adjudged that the assessment of the real property of the relators was erroneous by reason of over valuation and unequality in that the said assessment was made at a higher proportionate valuation than the real property on the same roll by the same officers; and that said assesment in excess of the sum of $100,000 was invalid, and that a tax passed upon said real property for the year 1886, under said assessment $130,000 was erroneous.

It was further ordered and adjudged that such assessment of $120,000 of said real property or said relators for the year 1886, should be, and the same was thereby, and as of that date corrected and reduced to the sum of $100,000, and said sum of $100,000 was adjudged and declared to be the assessment of said real property for the year 1886 and valid and effectual as of that date.

The judgment contained further provisions in relation to the payment by the relators to the register of arrears of the sum which should be the amount of the tax upon such real property for the said 1886, if said real property had not been erroneously and unequally assessed and had been assessed at the sum of $100,000.

From the judgments so entered, the defendant appealed to the general term.

An examination of the testimony, and the proceedings_ seems to show that the decision and judgment are in accordance with the evidence, and that the judgment should be affirmed, with costs.

Barnard, P. J.. concurs; Pratt, J., not sitting.  