
    PEOPLE ex rel. BOEHM v. WELLS.
    (Supreme Court, Special Term, New .York County. •
    December, 17, 1903.)
    Taxation—Application fob Reduction of Assessment—Sufficiency—Cebtiobabi.
    Where an application to the tax commissioners tor reduction ot an assessment does not show an overvaluation in comparison with real estate in the same county, but merely attempts to show it valued at a higher rate in proportion to its actual value than certain other pieces of property in the same block or in the immediate vicinity, and in some cases the real value of such other property is not stated, there is no proper foundation for an inquiry by certiorari into the alleged inequality of assessment.
    [Ed. Note.—For cases in point, see vol. 45, Cent. Dig. Taxation, § 894.]
    Certiorari by the people, on the relation of one Boehm, to review an assessment for taxation. Order for reference to try question of overvaluation.
    Hoge & Humphrey (Theodore F. Humphrey, of counsel), for relator.
    George L. Rives, Corp. Counsel (George S. Coleman and E. Crosby Kindleberger, of counsel), for the tax commissioners.
   SCOTT, J.

According to the latest views of the Appellate Division as to the requirements of an application to the tax commissioners for the reduction of assessments, the application upon which this proceeding is founded must be held to have been sufficient to require a hearing as to whether or not the property is overvalued. People ex rel. Edison Elec. Illum. Co. v. Feitner, 86 App. Div. 46, 83 N. Y. Supp. 1114. The application is not, however, in my opinion, sufficiently broad to raise any issue as to inequality of assessment. The decision above cited was based upon the affirmance by the Court of Appeals of the order of this court in People ex rel. Broadway Realty Co. v. Feitner, 61 App. Div. 156, 70 N. Y. Supp. 452, 168 N. Y. 661, 61 N. E. 1132, in which the application to the tax commissioners was upheld as sufficient to raise issues both as to overvaluation and inequality. That application was much broader than the one in the present case, and undertook to show that the property involved had been assessed at a higher proportionate rate than the other real estate in the same county taken collectively. It was held in People v. Carter, 109 N. Y. 576, 17 N. E. 222, that, in order to justify a claim of inequality, a petitioner must show a state of facts from which a presumption justly arises that the inequality of which he complains will subject him to the payment of more than his just proportion of the aggregate tax, and that this presumption does not arise by proof that in a particular instance other property, even if contiguous, is assessed at a proportionately lower valuation than his own. In the application now under examination the petitioners made no attempt to show that their property had been overvalued in comparison with real estate generally in the same county, but contented themselves with attempting to show that it had been valued at a higher rate, in proportion to its actual value, than certain other specified pieces of property upon the same block, or in the same immediate vicinity; and in most cases, even as to these specified pieces, while they state the assessed value, they wholly omit to state the real value. In my opinion, the relators have failed to lay a proper foundation for any inquiry into the alleged inequality of assessment, but under the latest expressed opinion of the Appellate Division they are entitled to a reference to try out the question of overvaluation.

Settle order on notice.  