From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

In re of S.N.H.N.C.Y.I. v. City of Mount Vernon

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Mar 8, 2004
5 A.D.3d 495 (N.Y. App. Div. 2004)

Opinion

2002-11277.

Decided March 8, 2004.

In a proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78 to review a determination of the Board of Assessment Review of the City of Mount Vernon, revoking the petitioner's tax exemption pursuant to Real Property Tax Law § 420-a, the City of Mount Vernon and the Board of Assessment Review of the City of Mount Vernon appeal from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Westchester County (Rosato, J.), entered November 6, 2002, which granted the petition.

Helen M. Blackwood, White Plains, N.Y. (Huff Wilkes, LLP [Jean Smiertka Huff and Thomas A. McTigue] of counsel), for appellants.

Heller, Horowitz Feit, P.C., New York, N.Y. (Maurice W. Heller of counsel) and John A. Sarcone III, White Plains, N.Y., for petitioner-respondent (one brief filed).

Before: DAVID S. RITTER, J.P., FRED T. SANTUCCI, THOMAS A. ADAMS, STEPHEN G. CRANE, JJ.


DECISION ORDER

ORDERED that the judgment is affirmed, with costs.

Real Property Tax Law § 420-a provides a mandatory exemption from the payment of real property taxes for real property which is used exclusively for one or more tax-exempt purposes and is owned by a tax-exempt organization ( see RPTL 420-a; Mohonk Trust v. Board of Assessors of Town of Gardiner, 47 N.Y.2d 476, 482; Matter of Pets Alive v. Wanat, 288 A.D.2d 386, 387; Matter of Storm King Art Ctr. v. Tiffany, 280 A.D.2d 606; Matter of Scenic Hudson Land Trust v. Sarvis, 234 A.D.2d 301, 303).

The appellants failed to raise an issue of fact that would have required the Supreme Court to conduct a hearing on the petitioner's request to be restored to tax-exempt status ( see Matter of Regional Economic Community Action Program v. Ritter, 270 A.D.2d 492; cf. Matter of Miriam Osborn Mem. Home Assn. v. Assessor of City of Rye, 275 A.D.2d 714, 716; Matter of Mid-Hudson Workshop for the Disabled v. City of Poughkeepsie, 245 A.D.2d 291, 292). The Supreme Court correctly concluded that the subject property was used for purposes integral to the exempt purposes of the operation of the corporation and granted the petition ( see Matter of Pets Alive v. Wanat, supra).

RITTER, J.P., SANTUCCI, ADAMS and CRANE, JJ., concur.


Summaries of

In re of S.N.H.N.C.Y.I. v. City of Mount Vernon

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Mar 8, 2004
5 A.D.3d 495 (N.Y. App. Div. 2004)
Case details for

In re of S.N.H.N.C.Y.I. v. City of Mount Vernon

Case Details

Full title:IN THE MATTER OF S.N.H.N.C.Y.I., INC., petitioner-respondent, v. CITY OF…

Court:Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department

Date published: Mar 8, 2004

Citations

5 A.D.3d 495 (N.Y. App. Div. 2004)
772 N.Y.S.2d 593

Citing Cases

Sephardic v. Ramapo

While acknowledging that exemption statutes are strictly construed against the taxpayer, to avoid defeating…

Laertes Solar, LLC v. Assessor of Town of Harford

Since there is no dispute on the essential facts surrounding the procedure undertaken by the District in its…