
    The People of the State of New York ex rel. Edison Electric Illuminating Company of Brooklyn, Respondent, v. Thomas L. Feitner et al., as Commissioners of Taxes and Assessments of the City of New York, Appellants.
    
      People ex rel. Edison El. III. Oo. v. Eeitner, 86 App. Div. 46, affirmed.
    (Argued March 15, 1904;
    decided March 29, 1904.)
    Appeal, by permission, from an order of the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court in the first judicial department, entered November 7, 1903, which reversed an order of Special Term quashing a writ of certiorari to review the action of the defendants in assessing property of the relator for the purpose of taxation. The following question was certified:
    “Was the following written application, presented to the Commissioners of Taxes and Assessments of the City of New York:
    “ 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distribution of your petitioner, whereby it distributes electric light and power throughout the said borough, is being superseded by different systems of electric distribution.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.
    Your 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.’
    sufficient to sustain a writ of certiorari under the General Tax Law and the Greater New York Charter to review the assessment of real estate upon the ground of over-valuation ? ”
    
      John J. Pelcmy, Corporation Counsel (George S. Coleman and Prnid Rumsey of counsel), for appellants.
    
      Charles A. GolUoi for respondent.
   Order affirmed, with costs, and question certified answered in the affirmative; no opinion.

Concur: Parker, Ch. J., Gray, O’Brien, Haight, Martin, Cullen and Werner, JJ.  