Honeoye Central School District v. Berle

New York Court of Appeals

Honeoye Central School District v. Berle

416 N.E.2d 1056, 51 N.Y.2d 970, 435 N.Y.S.2d 721, 1980 N.Y. LEXIS 2809

DecidedNovember 20, 1980

StatusPublished

This text of 416 N.E.2d 1056 (Honeoye Central School District v. Berle) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering New York Court of Appeals primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Honeoye Central School District v. Berle, 416 N.E.2d 1056, 51 N.Y.2d 970, 435 N.Y.S.2d 721, 1980 N.Y. LEXIS 2809 (N.Y. 1980).

Pincite

Opinion

OPINION OF THE COURT

Memorandum.

The orders of the Appellate Division should be affirmed, with costs, basically for the reasons stated in the opinion of Mr. Justice Stewart F. Hancock, Jr. (72 AD2d 25). We point out, as did the Appellate Division, that the statutory exemption scheme and history of section 480-a of the Real Property Tax Law (as amd by L 1976, ch 526, and L 1979, ch 683) amply demonstrates that it was designed to benefit private forest landowners engaged in or about to engage in commercial timber crop production. Additionally, article 4 of the Real Property Tax Law, the exemption article, is comprised of title 1 — “Public Property”, and title 2 — “Private Property” (L 1958, ch 959); section 480-a appears in the latter. We note only that the memorandum attributed to a cosponsor of the 1979 amending legislation (L 1979, ch 683) was actually submitted in support of an earlier version of the bill that was not passed.

Chief Judge Cooke and Judges Jasen, Gabrielli, Jones, Wachtler, Fuchsberg and Meyer concur.

Orders affirmed, with costs, in a memorandum.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

OPINION OF THE COURT

Memorandum.

The orders of the Appellate Division should be affirmed, with costs, basically for the reasons stated in the opinion of Mr. Justice Stewart F. Hancock, Jr. (72 AD2d 25). We point out, as did the Appellate Division, that the statutory exemption scheme and history of section 480-a of the Real Property Tax Law (as amd by L 1976, ch 526, and L 1979, ch 683) amply demonstrates that it was designed to benefit private forest landowners engaged in or about to engage in commercial timber crop production. Additionally, article 4 of the Real Property Tax Law, the exemption article, is comprised of title 1 — “Public Property”, and title 2 — “Private Property” (L 1958, ch 959); section 480-a appears in the latter. We note only that the memorandum attributed to a cosponsor of the 1979 amending legislation (L 1979, ch 683) was actually submitted in support of an earlier version of the bill that was not passed.

Chief Judge Cooke and Judges Jasen, Gabrielli, Jones, Wachtler, Fuchsberg and Meyer concur.

Orders affirmed, with costs, in a memorandum.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

416 N.E.2d 1056, 51 N.Y.2d 970, 435 N.Y.S.2d 721, 1980 N.Y. LEXIS 2809, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/honeoye-central-school-district-v-berle-ny-1980.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack