MATTER OF NEW YORK TELEPHONE CO., (CANOUGH), 290 N.Y. 537 (1943)

49 N.E.2d 999

In the Matter of NEW YORK TELEPHONE COMPANY, Appellant. WILLIAM F. CANOUGH, as Commissioner of Assessment of the City of Syracuse, Respondent. (2 Proceedings — 1941 and 1940 Assessments.)

Court of Appeals of the State of New York.Argued March 4, 1943
Decided June 18, 1943

Appeal from the Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Fourth Department, KINGSLEY, J.

Page 538

[EDITORS’ NOTE: THIS PAGE CONTAINS HEADNOTES. HEADNOTES ARE NOT AN OFFICIAL PRODUCT OF THE COURT, THEREFORE THEY ARE NOT DISPLAYED.]

Page 539

Edward L. Blackman, George R. Fearon and Frank A. Fritz for appellant.

Page 540

[EDITORS’ NOTE: THIS PAGE CONTAINS HEADNOTES. HEADNOTES ARE NOT AN OFFICIAL PRODUCT OF THE COURT, THEREFORE THEY ARE NOT DISPLAYED.]

Page 541

James C. Tormey, Corporation Counsel (Edward Garfield of counsel), for respondent.

Page 542

[EDITORS’ NOTE: THIS PAGE CONTAINS HEADNOTES. HEADNOTES ARE NOT AN OFFICIAL PRODUCT OF THE COURT, THEREFORE THEY ARE NOT DISPLAYED.]

Page 543

Thomas D. Thacher, Corporation Counsel (Arthur A. Segall, Robert H. Wrubel and Edward Garfield of counsel), for City of New York, amicus curiae, in support of respondent’s position.

Andrew P. Ronan, Corporation Counsel (Herbert A. Hickman of counsel), for City of Buffalo, amicus curiae, in support of respondent’s position.

Page 544

Per Curiam.

The orders should be affirmed, with costs, on the authority o Matter of New York Telephone Co. v. Ferris (257 App. Div. 415, 282 N.Y. 667).

There is no conflict between the Ferris case and People ex rel. New York Edison Co. v. Feitner (99 App. Div. 274, 181 N.Y. 549). The Tax Law has long defined “real property” as including “All mains, pipes and tanks laid or placed in, upon, above or under any public or private street or place for conducting steam, heat, water, oil, electricity * * *.” (§ 2, subd. 6). This provision was held by the Feitner case not to include equipment which the Edison Company had placed in private premises of its customers for the purpose of connecting the premises with the company’s feed mains in the street. The decision was that such equipment was not “laid or placed in, upon, above or under any public or private street or place.” The word “place,” as so used, was taken by the court to signify a short thoroughfare or square.

The orders should be affirmed, with costs.

LEHMAN, Ch. J., LOUGHRAN, RIPPEY, CONWAY and DESMOND, JJ., concur; LEWIS, J., taking no part.

Orders affirmed.

Page 545