You are here: / / ALTHOUGH THE BUILDING IS OWNED BY A NOT-FOR-PROFIT CORPORATION WHICH RAISES...

ALTHOUGH THE BUILDING IS OWNED BY A NOT-FOR-PROFIT CORPORATION WHICH RAISES FUNDS FOR HEALTHCARE SERVICES, THE BUILDING IS LEASED TO A FOR-PROFIT CORPORATION WHICH PROVIDES DIALYSIS; THE LEASED BUILDING, THEREFORE IS NOT EXEMPT FROM PROPERTY TAX PURSUANT TO RPTL 420-A (CT APP).

The Court of Appeals, in a full-fledged opinion by Judge Rivera, over a three-judge dissenting opinion, determined the property at issue, which is leased by a for-profit corporation, is not entitled to exemption from property taxes pursuant to Real Property Tax Law (RPTL) 420-a:

Petitioner Samuel and Bertha Schulman Institute for Nursing and Rehabilitation Fund, Inc. (Schulman), is a federally tax-exempt, New York not-for-profit corporation, which fundraises and manages assets in support of the healthcare purpose of non-parties Schulman and Schachne Institute for Nursing and Rehabilitation, Inc., and Brookdale Hospital Medical Center. Starting in 1995, Schulman leased to petitioner Brookdale Physicians’ Dialysis Associates, Inc. (Brookdale Dialysis) portions of a building Schulman owns in New York City. Brookdale Dialysis is a for-profit New York corporation that used the building to provide dialysis services for a fee. Under the lease Brookdale Dialysis paid $24,217.08 per month in rent to Schulman and was responsible for any property taxes that might become due during the tenancy. * * *

Petitioners argue that the property is exempt under RPTL 420-a (1) (a) because the building is used exclusively for its intended charitable purposes in that its dialysis services are vital and necessary to the charitable missions of Schulman and non-parties Brookdale Hospital and the Nursing Institute. However, the exempt purpose at issue here is that of the property owner—Schulman—and its purpose is to raise funds, not to provide dialysis services, or even medical services more generally. It is true that Brookdale Hospital and the Nursing Institute provide health care services, but still, the exemption is for Schulman’s property. And to the extent Schulman supports the health care efforts of these two entities it does so by fundraising, not by providing direct health care services. If Schulman engaged in its fundraising efforts in the building, then the exemption would apply to any portion so used, but Schulman vacated the premises during Brookdale Dialysis’ tenancy. Matter of Brookdale Physicians’ Dialysis Assoc., Inc. v Department of Fin. of the City of N.Y., 2024 NY Slip Op 01583, CtApp 3-21-24

Practice Point: A building owned by a not-for-profit corporation but leased to a for-profit corporation is not exempt from property tax pursuant to RPLT 420-a.

 

You might also like
COURT PROPERLY REFUSED TO APPROVE CLASS ACTION SETTLEMENT WHICH DID NOT GIVE OUT OF STATE SHAREHOLDERS THE RIGHT TO OPT OUT.
A PSYCHIATRIC EXAM IS A CRITICAL STAGE OF A PROSECUTION AT WHICH DEFENDANT HAS THE RIGHT TO COUNSEL; THE EXCLUSION OF DEFENSE COUNSEL FROM THE EXAM WAS NOT HARMLESS ERROR; CONVICTION REVERSED (CT APP).
BRADY MATERIAL WHICH CONTRADICTED THE PEOPLE’S THEORY OF THE CASE SHOULD HAVE BEEN PROVIDED TO THE DEFENSE, CONVICTION REVERSED (CT APP).
labor law prevailing wage requirement does not apply to construction work for a volunteer fire department which is a not-for-profit corporation.
Because Defendant’s Resentence to Remedy the Failure to Impose a Period of Post-Release Supervision Was On Appeal, Defendant Had Not Acquired a Legitimate Expectation of Finality in His Sentence such that the Double Jeopardy Clause Was Implicated
“Rent Paid In Advance” Lease Enforced/Insufficient Proof of Oral Modification
THE VALIDITY OF A GUILTY PLEA IS NOT PROPERLY RAISED IN THE COURT OF APPEALS AFTER THE AFFIRMANCE OF A LEGAL SENTENCE BY THE APPELLATE DIVISION; WHERE THE SENTENCE IS LEGAL, AN EXCESSIVE-SENTENCE CLAIM IS BEYOND THE SCOPE OF THE COURT OF APPEALS (CT APP).
CLAIMANT, A COURIER, WAS AN EMPLOYEE ENTITLED TO UNEMPLOYMENT BENEFITS (CT APP).

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

CONSULT THIS OPINION FOR IN-DEPTH DISCUSSIONS OF WHEN POSTREADINESS DELAY SHOULD... DEFENDANT WAS NOT GIVEN PRIOR NOTICE OF THE JUDGE’S SUA SPONTE DECISION...