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
ABSENT FRAUD, COLLUSION OR A MALICIOUS OR TORTIOUS ACT, DEFENDANT ATTORNEYS COULD NOT BE LIABLE FOR ACTING WITHIN THE SCOPE OF THEIR AUTHORITY AS AGENTS OF THE CLIENTS AND ALLEGEDLY ADVISING THEIR CLIENTS TO BREACH A CONTRACT WITH PLAINTIFFS (SECOND DEPT).
THE JUDGE SHOULD HAVE DECLARED A MISTRIAL AFTER THE JURY’S REPEATED COMMUNICATIONS EXPLAINING THEY COULD NOT REACH A UNANIMOUS VERDICT; NEW TRIAL ORDERED (SECOND DEPT).
DEFENDANT CHURCH DID NOT HAVE ANY INTEREST THE CONTESTED REAL PROPERTY UNDER THE PROVISIONS OF A CORRECTED DEED AND THE CANONS OF THE EPISCOPAL CHURCH (SECOND DEPT).
LATE NOTICE OF CLAIM PROPERLY ALLOWED DESPITE ABSENCE OF EXCUSE.
CONSECUTIVE SENTENCES NOT SUPPORTED BY ALLEGATIONS OR PLEA ALLOCUTION, NO ALLEGATION THE THREE CRIMINAL POSSESSION OF A WEAPON COUNTS WERE SEPARATE ACTS (SECOND DEPT).
PLAINTIFF UNABLE TO IDENTIFY THE CAUSE OF HIS FALL, DEFENDANT SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED SUMMARY JUDGMENT.
THE DEFENDANT RESTAURANT DID NOT DEMONSTRATE WHEN THE AREA WHERE PLAINTIFF SLIPPED AND FELL HAD LAST BEEN INSPECTED PRIOR TO THE FALL; THEREFORE THE RESTAURANT DID NOT DEMONSTRATE A LACK OF CONSTRUCTIVE NOTICE OF THE ALLEGED WET CONDITION (SECOND DEPT).
Assisting Resident Can Not Be Sued for Malpractice

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...