Opinion · Nylaw New York

MATTER OF HUDSON v. RYAN, 209 App. Div. 884 (1924)

In the Matter of Petition of ALFRED J. HUDSON, Respondent, for anOrder of Mandamus against JOHN J. RYAN, as Collector of Assessments andArrears of the City of N.Y., & Others, Appellants. EDWARDRIEGELMANN, as President of the Borough of Brooklyn, Intervenor., 209 A.D. 884 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department. 1924)

Type
Opinion
Court
Nylaw New York
Jurisdiction
Nylaw
Date
1924-01-01
Topic
general

MATTER OF HUDSON v. RYAN, 209 App. Div. 884 (1924) In the Matter of the Petition of ALFRED J. HUDSON, Respondent, for anOrder of Mandamus against JOHN J. RYAN, as Collector of Assessments andArrears of the City of New York, and Others, Appellants.

Citator

UpLaw has not yet analyzed MATTER OF HUDSON v. RYAN, 209 App. Div. 884 (1924). The absence of a flag is not a finding that it is good law.

MATTER OF HUDSON v. RYAN,209 App. Div. 884(1924)
In the Matter of the Petition of ALFRED J. HUDSON, Respondent, for an
Order of Mandamus against JOHN J. RYAN, as Collector of Assessments and
Arrears of the City of New York, and Others, Appellants. EDWARD
RIEGELMANN, as President of the Borough of Brooklyn, Intervenor.
Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department.
June, 1924.
Order unanimously affirmed, with costs. In addition to the grounds stated by Mr. Justice Faber in his decision at Special Term (N.Y.L.J. March 5, 1924), we desire to point out that the statute of 1923 is not mandatory, but permissive, in its provisions. The matter of adjusting the assessment was referred by the Legislature to the proper municipal authorities, who possessed complete power to levy the assessment, and also to correct any inequalities therein, or in the method of imposition and collection, if,Page 885in their judgment, such proceedings were necessary and proper to correct an injustice.
Present — Jaycox, Manning, Kelby, Young and Kapper, JJ.