You are here: / / FIBER OPTIC CABLES ARE NOT TAXABLE REAL PROPERTY UNDER REAL PROPERTY TAX...

FIBER OPTIC CABLES ARE NOT TAXABLE REAL PROPERTY UNDER REAL PROPERTY TAX LAW (RPTL) 102.

The Third Department, in a full-fledged opinion by Justice Peters, reversing Supreme Court, determined that fiber-optic cables are not taxable real property under Real Property Tax Law (RPTL) 102. However, petitioner telecommunications company was not entitled to a refund of taxes paid because no protest was made at the time of payment:

We … address petitioner’s application for a judgment declaring that its fiber optic installations are not taxable real property under the RPTL. Resolution of this issue turns upon the construction of RPTL 102 (12) (f), which provides that real property shall include, among other things, “equipment for the distribution of heat, light, power, gases and liquids.” The parties agree that the fiber optic cables at issue consist of filaments of glass through which light beams are used to transport information and data from one point to another. Yet they sharply disagree as to whether this constitutes the “distribution” of light within the meaning of RPTL 102 (12) (f). …[W]e hold that it does not.  Matter of Level 3 Communications, LLC v Clinton County, 2016 NY Slip Op 06930, 3rd Dept 10-20-16

REAL PROPERTY TAX LAW (FIBER OPTIC CABLES ARE NOT TAXABLE REAL PROPERTY UNDER REAL PROPERTY TAX LAW (RPTL) 102)/FIBER OPTIC CABLES (FIBER OPTIC CABLES ARE NOT TAXABLE REAL PROPERTY UNDER REAL PROPERTY TAX LAW (RPTL) 102)/TAX LAW (FIBER OPTIC CABLES ARE NOT TAXABLE REAL PROPERTY UNDER REAL PROPERTY TAX LAW (RPTL) 102)

You might also like
SENDING THE NOTICE OF FORECLOSURE TO BOTH BORROWERS IN THE SAME ENVELOPE VIOLATED RPAPL 1304 (THIRD DEPT).
DEFENDANTS IN THIS SLIP AND FALL CASE FAILED TO DEMONSTRATE THE DEFECT WHICH CAUSED PLAINTIFF’S FOOT TO SINK INTO SOFT ASPHALT WAS TRIVIAL OR OPEN AND OBVIOUS AS A MATTER OF LAW (THIRD DEPT).
Criteria for Sexual Harassment Lawsuit Against Employer Explained
THE DENIAL OF AN AREA VARIANCE FOR A GARAGE WHICH WAS BELOW THE MAXIMUM HEIGHT BUT WAS FOUR FEET HIGHER THAN THE RESIDENCE WAS DEEMED “IRRATIONAL” (THIRD DEPT).
THERE IS NO NEED TO FILE AN AFFIDAVIT OF SERVICE AFTER SERVICE OF A WARRANT AND NOTICE OF EVICTION; THE MATTER WAS CONSIDERED AS AN EXCEPTION TO THE MOOTNESS DOCTRINE (THIRD DEPT).
THE JUDGE MISCHARACTERIZED THE EVIDENCE AND EXHIBITED BIAS IN FAVOR OF FATHER IN THIS CUSTODY CASE, THE DETERMINATION WAS REVERSED AND THE MATTER SENT BACK FOR ANOTHER HEARING BEFORE A DIFFERENT JUDGE (THIRD DEPT). ​
THE MAJORITY AFFIRMED DEFENDANT’S CONVICTIONS FOR TWO SEPARATE MURDERS WHICH WERE TRIED TOGETHER; A TWO-JUSTICE DISSENT ARGUED THE TWO PROSECUTIONS SHOULD HAVE BEEN SEVERED BECAUSE OF THE WEAKNESS OF THE EVIDENCE AND THE PROBABILITY THE JURY WOULD NOT CONSIDER THE EVIDENCE OF EACH MURDER SEPARATELY (THIRD DEPT).
Horse Deemed a “Companion Animal”/Aggravated Cruelty to Animals Conviction Upheld

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

QUESTION OF FACT WHETHER OPERATORS OF A TUBING HILL UNREASONABLY INCREASED... IN THIS WILL CONSTRUCTION PROCEEDING, ALTHOUGH THE WILL DID NOT ANTICIPATE DECEDENT’S...