You are here: / / Termination of Participation in Affordable Housing Program Is Not a Taxable...
,

Termination of Participation in Affordable Housing Program Is Not a Taxable Transfer

In a full-fledged opinion by Justice Cohen, the Second Department determined that when a residential housing cooperative amends its certificate of incorporation as part of a voluntary dissolution, reconstitution, and termination of participation in the Mitchell-Lama housing program (Private Housing Finance Law section 10 et seq, an affordable housing program established in 1955) there is no transfer or conveyance of real property or an interest in real property and, therefore, no taxable event occurs under Tax Law section 1201(b) (i.e., no real property transfer tax [RPTT] is due).  This opinion replaced the opinion in Trump Vil. Section 3, Inc v City of New York, 100 AD3d 170, which is recalled and vacated. Trump Vil Section 3, Inc v City of New York, 2013 NY Slip Op 05894, 2nd Dept 9-18-13

 

You might also like
“Filed Rate Doctrine” Precluded Lawsuit Alleging Unreasonable Premium
Child Properly Found to Be a Vulnerable Witness and Properly Allowed to Testify Outside the Presence of the Defendant in a Sexual -Offense Trial
SURROGACY CONTRACT DOES NOT DEPRIVE MOTHER OF HER PARENTAL RIGHTS.
THE ELECTRICAL-CONTRACTOR CORP WAS NOT LICENSED TO DO ELECTRICAL WORK IN NYC; THE FACT THAT THE CORPORATION’S VICE PRESIDENT WAS LICENSED AND THE VICE PRESIDENT’S COMPANY, WHICH DID THE ELECTRICAL WORK AS A SUBCONTRACTOR, WAS LICENSED DOESN’T MATTER; THE CORPORATION CAN NOT SUE FOR BREACH OF CONTRACT (SECOND DEPT). ​
A SUBCONTRACTOR CAN BE LIABLE FOR A DANGEROUS CONDITION ON THE WORK SITE ONLY IF IT EXERCISED SUPERVISORY CONTROL OVER THE WORK SITE; THE LABOR LAW 200 CAUSE OF ACTION AGAINST THE SUBCONTRACTOR SHOULD HAVE BEEN DISMISSED (SECOND DEPT).
SUPREME COURT SHOULD NOT HAVE GRANTED DEFENDANT’S MOTION TO DISMISS THE INDICTMENT IN THE FURTHERANCE OF JUSTICE WITHOUT HOLDING A HEARING BECAUSE ESSENTIAL FACTS WERE IN DISPUTE (SECOND DEPT).
THE BANK FAILED TO DEMONSTRATE STANDING TO BRING THE FORECLOSURE ACTION WITH ADMISSIBLE EVIDENCE; THE BANK’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED (SECOND DEPT).
THE “PARTICULARITY” PLEADING-REQUIREMENTS FOR A FRAUD CAUSE OF ACTION DO NOT APPLY TO CAUSES OF ACTION ALLEGING A FRAUDULENT CONVEYANCE PURSUANT TO THE DEBTOR-CREDITOR LAW (SECOND DEPT).

Categories

Sign Up for the Mailing List to Be Notified When the Site Is Updated.

  • This field is for validation purposes and should be left unchanged.

Copyright © 2026 New York Appellate Digest, Inc.
Site by CurlyHost | Privacy Policy

Ownership Acquired by Adverse Possession Demonstrated Petition Seeking Revocation of Building Permit Should Have Named the Director...