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
Question of Fact Whether Out of Possession Landlord, Based on the Terms of the Lease, Had a Duty to Keep the Premises Safe (Labor Law 200)
DEFENDANTS DID NOT REQUEST THAT PLAINTIFFS GRANT A LICENSE FOR EXCAVATION WORK NEXT DOOR TO PLAINTIFFS’ BUILDING; NYC BUILDING CODE 3309.4 IMPOSES STRICT LIABILITY FOR DAMAGE CAUSED BY SUCH EXCAVATION WORK; OVERRULING PRECEDENT, PLAINTIFFS DID NOT NEED TO SHOW EITHER THAT A LICENSE WAS GRANTED OR THAT PLAINTIFFS TOOK OTHER STEPS TO PROTECT THEIR PROPERTY TO BE ENTITLED TO SUMMARY JUDGMENT FOR DEFENDANTS’ VIOLATION OF BUILDING CODE SECTION 3309.4 (SECOND DEPT).
ALTHOUGH SUPREME COURT PROPERLY DEEMED SERVICE COMPLETE DESPITE LATE FILING OF THE AFFIDAVIT OF SERVICE, DEFENDANT’S MOTION TO VACATE THE DEFAULT JUDGMENT SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN DENIED, RATHER DEFENDANT SHOULD HAVE BEEN GIVEN EXTRA TIME TO FILE AN ANSWER (SECOND DEPT).
Criteria for Causes of Action Under Labor Law 200 and Common Law Negligence (Where the Methods or Materials of the Work Are Alleged to Be the Cause of the Injury) Explained
Question of Fact Whether a Building Manager Owed a Duty to Plaintiff—Plaintiff, a Sidewalk Pedestrian, Was Struck by Window-Washing Equipment—The Window Washing Service Was an Independent Contractor Hired by the Building Manager—Question of Fact Raised Whether a Duty to the Plaintiff Ran from the Building Manager Because of the Inherently Dangerous Work the Independent Contractor Was Hired to Do and Because of the Nature of the Contract Between the Building Manager and the Building Owner—The Court Noted that the Property Owners Were Not Liable Because Ownership and Control of the Building on the Property Had Been Transferred (to the Building Owner)
THE HEARSAY EXCEPTION IN ARTICLE 10 OF THE FAMILY COURT ACT DOES NOT APPLY IN ARTICLE 8 FAMILY OFFENSE PROCEEDINGS; ORDER OF PROTECTION REVERSED (SECOND DEPT).
THE CITY DID NOT HAVE WRITTEN NOTICE OF THE SIDEWALK/CURB DEFECT IN THIS SLIP AND FALL CASE BECAUSE THE DEFECT DID NOT APPEAR ON THE BIG APPLE MAP WHICH HAD BEEN SERVED ON THE CITY, DESPITE THE APPARENT EXISTENCE OF ANOTHER BIG APPLE MAP WHICH SHOWED THE DEFECT BUT WAS NOT SHOWN TO HAVE BEEN SERVED ON THE CITY (SECOND DEPT).
HOSPITAL DID NOT DEMONSTRATE PHYSICIANS ALLEGED TO HAVE COMMITTED MALPRACTICE WERE NOT EMPLOYEES AND WERE NOT NEGLIGENT, MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT PROPERLY DENIED (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...