You are here: / / THE SOLAR ARRAY IS ATTACHED TO THE COLLEGE’S LAND AND IS THEREFORE...
,

THE SOLAR ARRAY IS ATTACHED TO THE COLLEGE’S LAND AND IS THEREFORE TAXABLE REAL PROPERTY; THE ARRAY IS OWNED BY THE INSTALLER, NOT THE COLLEGE, AND IS THEREFORE NOT EXEMPT FROM TAXATION (FOURTH DEPT).

The Fourth Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined that the solar array installed on petitioner-college’s land was owned by the installer, Argos, not the college, and is taxable as real property because it is permanently attached to the land:

Respondents contend that the system constitutes taxable real property under RPTL 102 (12) (b). We agree. Pursuant to that statute, taxable real property is defined as “[b]uildings and other articles and structures, substructures and superstructures erected upon, under or above the land, or affixed thereto” (id.). “The common law relating to fixtures provides guidance in determining whether particular items fall within [that] statutory definition” … . “To meet the common-law definition of fixture, the personalty in question must: (1) be actually annexed to real property or something appurtenant thereto; (2) be applied to the use or purpose to which that part of the realty with which it is connected is appropriated; and, (3) be intended by the parties as a permanent accession to the freehold” … . …

… .RPTL 420-a (1) (a) provides, in relevant part, that “[r]eal property owned by a corporation or association organized or conducted exclusively for . . . educational . . . purposes, and used exclusively for carrying out thereupon . . . such purposes . . . shall be exempt from taxation.” “Land and [structures] are separately defined as taxable forms of real property (see RPTL 102 [12] [a], [b]), and [parties to an agreement] may agree to their separate ownership” … . …

Here, it is undisputed that petitioner is a qualifying corporation, but Argos is not, and that the system is used for a qualifying purpose; therefore, whether the system is tax exempt depends on its ownership. Matter of Cornell Univ. v Board of Assessment Review, 2020 NY Slip Op 04636, Fourth Dept 8-20-20

 

/by
You might also like
Perjury Allegations Lacked Requisite Specificity, Indictment Should Have Been Dismissed
DEFENDANT DRIVER RAISED A QUESTION OF FACT WHETHER THE CAUSE OF THE ACCIDENT WAS BLACK ICE, PLAINTIFF PASSENGER’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED, DEFENDANT’S MOTION TO AMEND THE PLEADINGS TO ADD THE EMERGENCY DOCTRINE DEFENSE SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED (FOURTH DEPT).
FATHER’S PETITION FOR CUSTODY SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN DISMISSED WITHOUT MAKING A DETERMINATION ON THE MERITS, MATTER REMITTED; THE USUAL PROOF REQUIREMENTS FOR AWARDING CUSTODY TO A NONPARENT DO NOT APPLY TO A TEMPORARY PLACEMENT WITH A NONPARENT (FOURTH DEPT).
Supreme Court Should Not Have Deemed a Verified Claim to Be a Summons and Complaint Under the Authority of CPLR 2001 (Allowing Correction of Mistakes in the Method of Filing)
STATEMENTS MADE BY THE COUNTY EXECUTIVE CONCERNING HER DECISION TO FIRE PLAINTIFF, THE EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR OF THE MONROE COMMUNITY HOSPITAL, WERE EITHER ABSOLUTELY OR QUALIFIEDLY PRIVILEGED (FOURTH DEPT).
PLAINTIFF RAISED A QUESTION OF FACT WHETHER DEFENDANT CONTRACTOR CREATED AN UNREASONABLE RISK OF HARM WHEN INSTALLING A FLOOR AND THEREFORE OWED A DUTY TO PLAINTFF, HOWEVER THE DEFECT WAS TRIVIAL AS A MATTER OF LAW.
PETITIONER DID NOT COME FORWARD WITH SUFFICIENT EVIDENCE TO OVERCOME THE PRESUMPTION THAT THE REAL PROPERTY TAX ASSESSMENT WAS VALID.
IN THIS COMBINED ARTICLE 78 AND DECLARATORY JUDGMENT ACTION, THE FOUR-MONTH STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS APPLICABLE TO ARTICLE 78 DID NOT APPLY TO THE DECLARATORY JUDGMENT ACTION WHICH ONLY INVOLVED PRIVATE PARTIES, NOT A GOVERNMENT BODY OR OFFICER (FOURTH DEPT).

Categories

Sign Up for the Mailing List to Be Notified When the Site Is Updated.

[gravityform id=”1″ title=”false” description=”false” tabindex=”2″]

Copyright © 2022 New York Appellate Digest, LLC
Site by CurlyHost | Privacy Policy

THE ORAL STIPULATION OF SETTLEMENT IN THIS DIVORCE ACTION IS INVALID AND UNENFORCEABLE... PLAINTIFF’S HOMEOWNER’S POLICY EXCLUDED COVERAGE FOR INTENTIONAL...