Summary
In B'Nai B'Rith Club, Inc., v. City of New York (supra) the Court of Appeals, in overruling the claim that the real property there involved was exempt under the provisions of the Tax Law, upon which the present relator's claim of exemption is predicated, pointed out, among other things, that the property "is not used exclusively for meetings."
Summary of this case from People ex Rel. Manhattan B. Councils v. MillerOpinion
Argued December 13, 1935
Decided January 21, 1936
Appeal from the Supreme Court, Appellate Division, First Department.
Paul Windels, Corporation Counsel ( Oscar S. Cox and Laurence J. Rittenband and Frances W. Lehrich of counsel), for appellant.
L.E. Schlechter for respondent.
Respondent is a membership corporation, not a fraternal organization. It uses the real property in question for rental purposes and profit. It does not, therefore, come under the first part of section 4, subdivision 6 (formerly 7) of the Tax Law (Cons. Laws, ch. 60). The property is not used exclusively for charitable or benevolent purposes, and it is not used exclusively for meetings, and the net income is not used exclusively to build and maintain a home for the members of the corporation; therefore, the real property is not exempt under the second part of section 4, subdivision 6. (Cf. People ex rel. Masonic Hall Assn. v. White, 218 App. Div. 38; affirmed, 244 N.Y. 564.) (See, also, Matter of Syracuse Masonic Temple, 270 N.Y. 8, handed down herewith.)
The judgment of the Appellate Division should be reversed and that of the Special Term affirmed, with costs in this court and in the Appellate Division.
CRANE, Ch. J., O'BRIEN, HUBBS, CROUCH, LOUGHRAN and FINCH, JJ., concur; LEHMAN, J., not sitting.
Judgment accordingly.