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
PLAINTIFF FAILED TO RAISE A QUESTION OF FACT WHETHER AN ALLEGED DEFECT IN THE ROAD WAS CAUSED BY DEFENDANT’S SPECIAL USE OF THE ROAD; TWO DISSENTERS DISAGREED (FOURTH DEPT).
THE JUDGE IN THIS AGGRAVATED CRUELTY TO ANIMALS CASE SHOULD NOT HAVE REDUCED THE COUNTS IN THE INDICTMENT ABSENT A WRITTEN MOTION OR A WAIVER BY THE PEOPLE; THE EVIDENCE WAS LEGALLY SUFFICIENT TO SUPPORT THE INDICTMENT; THE JUDGE SHOULD NOT HAVE DETERMINED DEFENDANT COULD NOT HAVE FORMED THE REQUISITE INTENT DUE TO MENTAL DISEASE OR DEFECT; ONLY A JURY CAN MAKE THAT DETERMINATION (FOURTH DEPT).
THE PLAINTIFF MADE A LEFT TURN IN FRONT OF DEFENDANT WHEN DEFENDANT HAD THE RIGHT OF WAY; DEFENDANT’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT IN THIS TRAFFIC ACCIDENT CASE SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED; PLAINTIFF’S AFFIDAVIT ALLEGING DEFENDANT ATTEMPTED TO GO AROUND ANOTHER VEHICLE WAS BASED ON SPECULATION WHICH IS NOT SUFFICIENT TO DEFEAT SUMMARY JUDGMENT (FOURTH DEPT). ​
Father’s Consent to Adoption Not Required
COMPARATIVE NEGLIGENCE IS A DEFENSE TO A LABOR LAW 241 (6) CAUSE OF ACTION (FOURTH DEPT).
THE MEDICAL MALPRACTICE ACTION AGAINST A FIRST-YEAR RESIDENT, WHO DID NOT EXERCISE INDEPENDENT JUDGMENT IN FOLLOWING THE DIRECTION OF HIS SUPERVISORS TO DISCONTINUE A MEDICATION, SHOULD HAVE BEEN DISMSSED; THE DISSENT DISAGREED (FOURTH DEPT).
THE FOR CAUSE CHALLENGES TO TWO JURORS WHO SAID THEY WOULD TEND TO BELIEVE THE TESTIMONY OF POLICE OFFICERS SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED; NEW TRIAL ORDERED (FOURTH DEPT).
WHEN A WITNESS’S IDENTIFICATION OF THE DEFENDANT FROM A PHOTOGRAPH SHOWN TO HIM BY THE POLICE IS DEEMED “CONFIRMATORY,” THAT CONCLUSION IS TANTAMOUNT TO A DETERMINATION AS A MATTER OF LAW THAT THE POLICE IDENTIFICATION PROCEDURE WAS NOT SUGGESTIVE AND COULD NOT HAVE LED TO THE MISIDENTIFICATION OF THE DEFENDANT BECAUSE THE WITNESS KNEW THE DEFENDANT WELL; HERE THE PROOF THE IDENTIFICATION WAS CONFIRMATORY WAS INSUFFICIENT; THE IDENTIFICATION TESTIMONY SHOULD HAVE BEEN SUPPRESSED; NEW TRIAL ORDERED (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...