You are here: / / NON-PROFIT RETREAT ENTITLED TO REAL PROPERTY TAX EXEMPTION FOR ENTIRE PROPERTY, NOT ...

NON-PROFIT RETREAT ENTITLED TO REAL PROPERTY TAX EXEMPTION FOR ENTIRE PROPERTY, NOT JUST THE DEVELOPED PORTION.

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined the owner of a retreat (Greentree, a non-profit) )was entitled to a real property tax exemption for the entirety of the property, not just the developed portion:

On this appeal, the record supports the conclusion that Greentree is organized exclusively for an exempt purpose within the meaning of RPTL 420-a(1)(a), and that its conference center was used for that exempt purpose during the tax year 2013/2014 … . Indeed, the Assessors do not dispute this conclusion. Rather, the Assessors contend that undeveloped portions of the property are not integral to the use of the structures on the property as a retreat and conference center, and thus, the entire subject property is not “used exclusively” for carrying out Greentree’s exempt purpose as required by RPTL 420-a(1)(a).

The term “exclusively,” in the context of RPTL 420-a, “is not to be read literally” … , and “has been broadly defined to connote principal or primary such that purposes and uses merely auxiliary or incidental to the main and exempt purpose and use will not defeat the exemption” … . “Thus, whether property is used exclusively’ for purposes of section 420-a is dependent upon whether the primary use’ of the property is in furtherance of permitted purposes” … .

Here, Greentree demonstrated that the entire property should be considered as a single unit and that it is used exclusively for tax exempt purposes. More specifically, Greentree offered proof that the undeveloped area is an integral part of the property, regardless of the frequency of use, because it served to preserve the character of the remaining property and, thus, is entitled to exemption … . Matter of Greentree Found. v Assessor & Bd. of Assessors of County of Nassau, 2016 NY Slip Op 05861, 2nd Dept 8-24-16

 

REAL PROPERTY TAX LAW (NON-PROFIT RETREAT ENTITLED TO REAL PROPERTY TAX EXEMPTION FOR ENTIRE PROPERTY, NOT JUST THE DEVELOPED PORTION)/TAX EXEMPTION (REAL PROPERTY, NON-PROFIT RETREAT ENTITLED TO REAL PROPERTY TAX EXEMPTION FOR ENTIRE PROPERTY, NOT JUST THE DEVELOPED PORTION)

You might also like
PLAINTIFF IN THIS DIVORCE ACTION WAS ENTITLED TO A NEW HEARING ON WHETHER THE PRENUPTIAL AGREEMENT SHOULD BE SET ASIDE; THE COURT NOTED THAT A CONTRACT WHICH MAY NOT BE UNCONSCIONABLE WHEN ENTERED MAY BECOME UNCONSCIONABLE WHEN FINAL JUDGMENT IS ENTERED (SECOND DEPT).
THE PETITION BROUGHT BY THE EXECUTOR PURSUANT TO SCPA 2103 SOUGHT DISCOVERY AND THE TURNOVER OF ANNUITY FUNDS WHICH HAD BEEN TRANSFERRED TO APPELLANT; THE SCPA 21O3 ACTION IS LIKE AN ACTION FOR CONVERSION OR REPLEVIN AND HAS A THREE-YEAR STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS; HERE THE MOTIONS TO AMEND THE ANSWERS TO ASSERT THE STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS DEFENSE AND FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT ON THAT GROUND SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED (SECOND DEPT).
WHETHER A CONDITION IS OPEN AND OBVIOUS SPEAKS TO COMPARATIVE NEGLIGENCE, AN OPEN AND OBVIOUS CONDITION CAN BE THE BASIS FOR LIABILITY IF THE CONDITION AMOUNTS TO A TRAP FOR THE UNWARY OR DISTRACTED, MOTION TO SET ASIDE THE VERDICT SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED, MOTION FOR SANCTIONS AGAINST DEFENSE COUNSEL FOR BRINGING THE MOTION TO SET ASIDE SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED (SECOND DEPT).
CPLR 311-A REQUIREMENTS FOR SERVICE OF PROCESS ON A LIMITED LIABILITY COMPANY NOT MET, COURT DID NOT OBTAIN JURISDICTION OVER DEFENDANT (SECOND DEPT).
FINDING THAT DENNIS T IS A PERSON LEGALLY RESPONSIBLE FOR THE CARE OF A CHILD WAS PROPER, EVIDENTIARY RULE ANALOGOUS TO RES IPSA LOQUITUR SUPPORTED THE ABUSE FINDING (SECOND DEPT).
PROSECUTOR ACTED AS AN UNSWORN WITNESS DURING SUMMATION, PROSECUTORIAL MISCONDUCT MANDATED A NEW TRIAL.
ALTHOUGH SUPREME COURT PROPERLY DEEMED SERVICE COMPLETE DESPITE LATE FILING OF THE AFFIDAVIT OF SERVICE, DEFENDANT’S MOTION TO VACATE THE DEFAULT JUDGMENT SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN DENIED, RATHER DEFENDANT SHOULD HAVE BEEN GIVEN EXTRA TIME TO FILE AN ANSWER (SECOND DEPT).
Hospital Employees, Working With a Non-Employee Attending Physician, Were Not Independently Negligent and Were Not Asked to Follow Orders Which Were Contrary to Normal Practice—Summary Judgment Dismissing Complaint Against Hospital Should Have Been Granted

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 © 2025 New York Appellate Digest, Inc.
Site by CurlyHost | Privacy Policy

REFEREE’S ALLEGED VIOLATION OF A LOCAL COURT RULE DID NOT WARRANT SETTING... QUESTION OF FACT WHETHER EMPLOYER VICARIOUSLY LIABLE FOR NEGLIGENCE OF AN INDEPENDENT...