You are here: / / CELL PHONE TRANSMISSION EQUIPMENT TAXABLE UNDER REAL PROPERTY TAX LAW.

CELL PHONE TRANSMISSION EQUIPMENT TAXABLE UNDER REAL PROPERTY TAX LAW.

The Second Department, applying principles of statutory interpretation, determined that cell phone system equipment owned by T-Mobile was taxable under provisions of the Real Property Tax Law:

… T-Mobile’s fiber optic, T-1, and coaxial cables, as well as the connections between T-Mobile’s equipment and that of the local exchange carrier, are “lines” or “wires” within the meaning of RPTL 102(12)(i) and, thus, are taxable real property.

… [S]ince T-Mobile’s base transceiver station cabinets contain, among other things, primary and battery backup power systems and equipment for “[m]odify[ing] and retransmit[ting] . . . radio signals for landline retransmission via separate electrical conductors or fiber optics,” they can properly be characterized as “inclosures for electrical conductors” within the meaning of RPTL 102(12)(i).

Likewise, while T-Mobile’s rooftop antennas, which are flat and four to five feet in both length and width, cannot be characterized as “poles” within the ordinary understanding of that term, they can be properly characterized as “inclosures for electrical conductors” inasmuch as they are a part to the base transceiver station cabinet.

Further, the contention of the School District and the City that T-Mobile’s rooftop antennas can also be taxed as fixtures pursuant to RPTL 102(12)(b) is correct. Matter of T-Mobile Northeast, LLC v DeBellis, 2016 NY Slip Op 07031, 2nd Dept 10-26-16

 

REAL PROPERTY TAX LAW (CELL PHONE TRANSMISSION EQUIPMENT TAXABLE UNDER REAL PROPERTY TAX LAW)/TAX LAW (CELL PHONE TRANSMISSION EQUIPMENT TAXABLE UNDER REAL PROPERTY TAX LAW)/CELL PHONE TRANSMISSION EQUIPMENT (CELL PHONE TRANSMISSION EQUIPMENT TAXABLE UNDER REAL PROPERTY TAX LAW)/TAX LAW (CELL PHONE TRANSMISSION EQUIPMENT TAXABLE UNDER REAL PROPERTY TAX LAW

You might also like
Criteria Where Defendant Not Specifically Mentioned in Allegedly Defamatory Statement
Homeowner’s Exception Did Not Apply to a Horse Barn Used for Commercial Purposes Despite Presence of an Apartment in the Barn
Requirements of Adverse Possession by “Tacking” Explained (Not Met Here)
DEFENDANT SHOULD HAVE BEEN AFFORDED THE OPPORTUNITY TO CURE A DEFAULT IN MONTHLY PAYMENTS ON A LOAN BEFORE PLAINTIFF SOUGHT TO ENFORCE THE TERMS OF THE STIPULATION OF SETTLEMENT, WHICH WOULD RESULT IN DEFENDANT OWING MORE THAN TWICE WHAT REMAINED TO BE PAID (SECOND DEPT). ​
Forcing Appellant to Proceed Without Counsel in a Family Court Act Article 8 Action Required Reversal of Order of Protection
IN THIS NEGLIGENT SUPERVISION, HIRING AND RETENTION CASE, THE MEDICAL RECORDS OF A NON-PARTY WITNESS WHO ALLEGED IMPROPER CONDUCT BY DEFENDANT DOCTOR ARE DISCOVERABLE ONLY TO THE EXTENT THEY INCLUDE NON-PRIVILEGED INFORMATION INDICATING DEFENDANT DOCTOR’S EMPLOYER WAS AWARE OF THE ALLEGATIONS, THE NON-PARTY WITNESS DID NOT WAIVE THE PHYSICIAN-PATIENT PRIVILEGE BY DISCUSSING HER MEDICAL HISTORY IN A DEPOSITION (SECOND DEPT).
THIS BREACH OF CONTRACT, QUASI CONTRACT, UNJUST ENRICHMENT COMPLAINT SHOULD HAVE BEEN DISMISSED; PLAINTIFF SCHOOL BUS COMPANY WAS SEEKING PAYMENT FOR THE MONTHS THE SCHOOLS WERE CLOSED DUE TO COVID-19 (SECOND DEPT).
REVIEW OF PLAINTIFF’S WORK POSTED ON YELP WAS OPINION, NOT ACTIONABLE LIBEL.

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

PLAINTIFF’S CONFLICTING EVIDENCE ABOUT WHEN THE PUDDLE WAS FIRST SEEN... APPELLATE DIVISION APPLIED THE WRONG TEST TO A MOTION TO SET ASIDE THE VERDICT...