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

FIBER OPTIC CABLES NOT TAXABLE UNDER THE REAL PROPERTY TAX LAW.

The Fourth Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined fiber optic cables were not included in the statutory definition of real property and therefore were not taxable under the Real Property Tax Law (RPTL). However, because the fiber optic company paid the taxes voluntarily and without protest, it was not entitled to a refund:

The word distribution means “a spreading out or scattering over an area or throughout a space” or “delivery or conveyance (as of newspapers or goods) to the members of a group” (Webster’s Third New International Dictionary [2002]). Examples include “the distribution of the oil throughout the engine parts” and “the distribution of telephone directories to customers” (id.). In other words, distribution implies an “apportioning of something” more or less evenly, or as a due or right, to an “appropriate person or place” … . Given the context in which the word distribution appears in RPTL 102 (12) (f), that definition makes sense. Undoubtedly, the kinds of equipment enumerated in the statute, such as boilers, plumbing, and lighting apparatus, distribute heat, liquids, and light to consumers. By contrast, although “the fiber optic cables at issue undeniably transmit light signals from one end of the network to the other, such transmission does not result in the distribution’ of light, but rather data” … . Thus, we cannot conclude that petitioner’s fiber optic installations distribute light ” without resorting to an artificial or forced construction’ ” … . Matter of Level 3 Communications, LLC v Chautauqua County, 2017 NY Slip Op 02322, 4th Dept 3-24-17

REAL PROPERTY TAX LAW (FIBER OPTIC CABLES NOT TAXABLE UNDER THE REAL PROPERTY TAX LAW)/TAX LAW (FIBER OPTIC CABLES NOT TAXABLE UNDER THE REAL PROPERTY TAX LAW)/FIBER OPTIC CABLES (FIBER OPTIC CABLES NOT TAXABLE UNDER THE REAL PROPERTY TAX LAW)

You might also like
ALTHOUGH THE RESIDENT SEVERED PLAINTIFF’S NERVE DURING SURGERY, THE RESIDENT WAS UNDER THE SUPERVISION OF PLAINTIFF’S SURGEON AND EXERCISED NO INDEPENDENT JUDGMENT, MALPRACTICE ACTION AGAINST THE RESIDENT SHOULD HAVE BEEN DISMISSED (FOURTH DEPT).
DEFENDANT, AN OUT OF POSSESSION LESSEE OF THE PROPERTY WHERE PLAINTIFF WAS INJURED, WAS NOT AN OWNER WITHIN THE MEANING OF LABOR LAW 240 (1) AND 241 (6), DEFENDANT’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT DISMISSING THOSE CAUSES OF ACTION WAS PROPERLY GRANTED (FOURTH DEPT).
THE JUDGE DID NOT HAVE THE AUTHORITY TO GRANT DEFENSE COUNSEL’S REQUEST FOR A VIDEOTAPE OF AN INTERVIEW OF THE CHILD (ALLEGED) VICTIM IN THIS SEXUAL OFFENSE CASE, THE INTERVIEW WAS CONDUCTED BY A PRIVATE PARTY AND WAS DISCOVERABLE ONLY IF IT CONSTITUTED BRADY (EXCULPATORY) MATERIAL, THE JUDGE DID NOT VIEW THE TAPE TO DETERMINE WHETHER IT WAS BRADY MATERIAL (FOURTH DEPT).
THE ROBBERY CONVICTION WAS AGAINST THE WEIGHT OF THE EVIDENCE; THE STOP AND FRISK OF DEFENDANT WAS NOT JUSTIFIED; THE SHOWUP IDENTIFICATION SHOULD HAVE BEEN SUPPRESSED (FOURTH DEPT).
DEFENDANT FARM’S EMPLOYEE WAS DRIVING FARM EQUIPMENT AT NIGHT WITHOUT LIGHTS WHEN PLAINTIFF COLLIDED WITH IT; PLAINTIFF WAS ENTITLED TO SUMMARY JUDGMENT UNDER A NEGLIGENCE-PER-SE THEORY AND UNDER RESPONDEAT SUPERIOR (FOURTH DEPT).
CITY EMPLOYEE’S CONTRACTUAL RIGHT TO MEDICAL BENEFITS VESTED BEFORE THE COLLECTIVE BARGAINING AGREEMENT WAS TERMINATED (FOURTH DEPT).
DEFENDANT CONVICTED OF ASSAULT FIRST DEGREE FOR ALLOWING HIS DOG TO ATTACK THE VICTIM, EVIDENCE OF INTENT TO CAUSE SERIOUS INJURY WAS LEGALLY SUFFICIENT, MOTION FOR TRIAL ORDER OF DISMISSAL AT THE CLOSE OF THE EVIDENCE PRESERVED THE ISSUE BY REFERRING TO THE MOTION MADE AT THE CLOSE OF THE PEOPLE’S CASE (FOURTH DEPT).
THE JUDGE IN THIS POST-DIVORCE PROCEEDING ENCOMPASSING FIVE APPEALS, WAS DEEMED TO HAVE MADE MANY RULINGS NOT SUPPORTED BY THE RECORD, IN PART BECAUSE NECESSARY HEARINGS WERE NOT HELD; THE IMPROPER RULINGS INCLUDED A RESTRICTION OF THE ATTORNEY-FOR-THE-CHILD’S (AFC’S) INTERACTIONS WITH THE CHILDREN (FOURTH 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

DEFENDANTS DID NOT HAVE ACTUAL OR CONSTRUCTIVE NOTICE OF LEAD-PAINT CONDITION,... PLANNING BOARD ACTED ARBITRARILY AND CAPRICIOUSLY WHEN IT DENIED PETITIONER’S...