You are here: / / NON-PROFIT RETREAT ENTITLED TO REAL PROPERTY TAX EXEMPTION FOR ENTIRE PROPERTY, NOT ...

NON-PROFIT RETREAT ENTITLED TO REAL PROPERTY TAX EXEMPTION FOR ENTIRE PROPERTY, NOT JUST THE DEVELOPED PORTION.

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined the owner of a retreat (Greentree, a non-profit) )was entitled to a real property tax exemption for the entirety of the property, not just the developed portion:

On this appeal, the record supports the conclusion that Greentree is organized exclusively for an exempt purpose within the meaning of RPTL 420-a(1)(a), and that its conference center was used for that exempt purpose during the tax year 2013/2014 … . Indeed, the Assessors do not dispute this conclusion. Rather, the Assessors contend that undeveloped portions of the property are not integral to the use of the structures on the property as a retreat and conference center, and thus, the entire subject property is not “used exclusively” for carrying out Greentree’s exempt purpose as required by RPTL 420-a(1)(a).

The term “exclusively,” in the context of RPTL 420-a, “is not to be read literally” … , and “has been broadly defined to connote principal or primary such that purposes and uses merely auxiliary or incidental to the main and exempt purpose and use will not defeat the exemption” … . “Thus, whether property is used exclusively’ for purposes of section 420-a is dependent upon whether the primary use’ of the property is in furtherance of permitted purposes” … .

Here, Greentree demonstrated that the entire property should be considered as a single unit and that it is used exclusively for tax exempt purposes. More specifically, Greentree offered proof that the undeveloped area is an integral part of the property, regardless of the frequency of use, because it served to preserve the character of the remaining property and, thus, is entitled to exemption … . Matter of Greentree Found. v Assessor & Bd. of Assessors of County of Nassau, 2016 NY Slip Op 05861, 2nd Dept 8-24-16

 

REAL PROPERTY TAX LAW (NON-PROFIT RETREAT ENTITLED TO REAL PROPERTY TAX EXEMPTION FOR ENTIRE PROPERTY, NOT JUST THE DEVELOPED PORTION)/TAX EXEMPTION (REAL PROPERTY, NON-PROFIT RETREAT ENTITLED TO REAL PROPERTY TAX EXEMPTION FOR ENTIRE PROPERTY, NOT JUST THE DEVELOPED PORTION)

You might also like
An “Administrative Evaluation,” As Opposed to a Formal Disciplinary Reprimand, Can Remain in a Teacher’s File Even though the Evaluation Was Issued In the Absence of the Formal Notice and Hearing Requirements of Education Law 3020-a
PLAINTIFF’S DECEDENT WAS KILLED WHEN THROWN FROM A RENTED MOPED; THE RENTAL AGREEMENT INCLUDED AN ARBITRATION CLAUSE; THE NEGLIGENCE CAUSES OF ACTION ARE SUBJECT TO THE ARBITRATION CLAUSE; HOWEVER, THE WRONGFUL DEATH CAUSE OF ACTION IS NOT SUBJECT TO THE ARBITRATION CLAUSE; NEGLIGENCE AND WRONGFUL-DEATH CAUSES OF ACTION ARE DISTINCT AND ADDRESS DIFFERENT INJURIES; THE WINNING ISSUE WAS RAISED FOR THE FIRST TIME ON APPEAL (SECOND DEPT).
WAIVER OF APPEAL INVALID; MATTER REMITTED FOR THE STATUTORILY REQUIRED FINDINGS FOR THE DENIAL OF DEFENDANT’S SUPPRESSION MOTION; APPEAL HELD IN ABEYANCE (SECOND DEPT).
QUESTION OF FACT WHETHER FLOODING, AS OPPOSED TO WIND, CAUSED THE PROPERTY DAMAGE PRECLUDED SUMMARY JUDGMENT IN FAVOR OF THE INSURER BASED UPON POLICY EXCLUSIONS (SECOND DEPT).
THE PRINCIPAL WITNESS AGAINST DEFENDANT IN THIS FIRST DEGREE MURDER (MURDER-FOR-HIRE) TRIAL WAS AN ACCOMPLICE AS A MATTER OF LAW; IT WAS REVERSIBLE ERROR TO FAIL TO SO INSTRUCT THE JURY; ALTHOUGH THE ISSUE WAS NOT PRESERVED, IT WAS CONSIDERED IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE; THE DEFENDANT’S ALLEGED SILENCE IN RESPONSE TO AN ACCUSATION (ADOPTIVE ADMISSION) WAS INADMISSIBLE BECAUSE THE PEOPLE DID NOT PROVE DEFENDANT HEARD THE ACCUSATION (SECOND DEPT). ​
Criteria for Professional Negligence Actions Against Accountant Not in Privity with Plaintiff and Against Actuary
PLAINTIFF BANK IN THIS FORECLOSURE ACTION DID NOT DEMONSTRATE STANDING WITH SUFFICIENT PROOF THAT THE NOTE WAS LOST (PURSUANT TO THE UCC) AND DID NOT PRESENT EVIDENCE SUFFICIENT TO WARRANT CORRECTION OF THE LEGAL DESCRIPTION OF THE PREMISES IN THE MORTGAGE BASED UPON MUTUAL MISTAKE (SECOND DEPT).
THE PROPERTY OWNER AND GENERAL CONTRACTOR FAILED TO DEMONSTRATE THAT THE INDUSTRIAL CODE PROVISION REQUIRING EMPLOYERS TO ENSURE THE FLOOR AT THE WORK SITE IS NOT SLIPPERY DID NOT APPLY TO THE FLOOR OF A TRUCK OWNED AND OPERATED BY A THIRD PARTY WHICH DELIVERED MATERIALS TO THE WORK SITE; HERE PLAINTIFF ALLEGED HE SLIPPED AND FELL ON OIL ON THE FLOOR OF THE TRUCK AS HE WAS ATTEMPTING TO UNLOAD IT (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 © 2025 New York Appellate Digest, Inc.
Site by CurlyHost | Privacy Policy

REFEREE’S ALLEGED VIOLATION OF A LOCAL COURT RULE DID NOT WARRANT SETTING... QUESTION OF FACT WHETHER EMPLOYER VICARIOUSLY LIABLE FOR NEGLIGENCE OF AN INDEPENDENT...