
    Jonas Weil et al., Respondents, v. The City of New York, Appellant.
    
      Weil v. City of New York, 179 App. Div. 80, affirmed.
    (Argued March 12, 1918;
    decided March 26, 1918.)
    Appeal from a judgment, entered September 14, 1917, upon an order of the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court in the first judicial department, reversing a judgment in favor of defendant entered upon a dismissal of the complaint by the court on trial at Special Term and directing judgment in favor of plaintiffs enjoining the defendant from taking any proceedings to enforce a lien for taxes on certain property in the borough of Manhattan, for the years 1906-1911 inclusive, and adjudging that the lien of the mortgage of the plaintiffs is superior to the lien of the' taxes of the city' for said years. • It appears that from the years 1906 to 1911, inclusive, the premises covered by the mortgage, together with certain adjoining premises were in each year duly assessed for taxes as one undivided lot, and during those years the taxes upon the entire lot, including the premises covered by the mortgage, were duly paid and entered as paid upon the books and records of the receiver of taxes. The taxes during each"of these years. 1906 to 1911 were assessed to and paid by one William Rowland, the owner of the other portion of the undivided lot, and in the year 1912 the defendant, city of New York, upon discovering that the taxes had been paid by Rowland upon the whole lot in error, refunded to Rowland the amount apportioned to the premises owned by the mortgagor and charged the same, amounting to $1,620.27, plus interest and penalties, as a lien against the premises covered by the plaintiffs’ mortgage. The plaintiffs in this action sought to have the lien declared invalid as to their mortgage, on the ground of equitable estoppel, claiming that they changed their position in reliance upon the statements made by the city of New York in its tax records, to the effect that there were no tax liens upon the premises.
    
      William P. Burr, Corporation Counsel (William H. King and Addison B. Scoville of counsel), for appellant.
    
      Nathan D. Stern for respondents.
   Judgment affirmed, with costs, on opinion of Page, J., below.

Concur: Hiscock, Ch. J., Chase, Hogan, Cardozo, Pound, McLaughlin and Andrews, JJ.  