Mid-Hudson Workshop for the Disabled, Inc. v. City of Poughkeepsie

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Mid-Hudson Workshop for the Disabled, Inc. v. City of Poughkeepsie

245 A.D.2d 291, 665 N.Y.S.2d 941, 1997 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 12082

CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York

DecidedDecember 1, 1997

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 245 A.D.2d 291 (Mid-Hudson Workshop for the Disabled, Inc. v. City of Poughkeepsie) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Mid-Hudson Workshop for the Disabled, Inc. v. City of Poughkeepsie, 245 A.D.2d 291, 665 N.Y.S.2d 941, 1997 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 12082 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1997).

Pincite

Opinion

—In a proceeding pursuant to CPLR [292]*292article 78, inter alia, to review a determination denying the petitioner a full property tax exemption pursuant to Real Property Tax Law § 420-a, the City of Poughkeepsie and Deborah Regula, as Assessor of the City of Poughkeepsie, appeal from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Dutchess County (Jiudice, J.), entered December 4, 1996, which granted the petition.

Ordered that the judgment is reversed, on the law, without costs or disbursements, and the matter is remitted to the Supreme Court, Dutchess County, for a hearing in accordance herewith.

The appellants granted the petitioner, a nonprofit corporation, a partial property tax exemption for the 1996 tax year. The petitioner then commenced this proceeding claiming that it is entitled to a full exemption pursuant to RPTL 420-a (1) (a). The Supreme Court granted the petition.

The court properly determined that this proceeding is not time-barred (see, Matter of Adventist Home v Board of Assessors, 83 NY2d 878; Kahal Bnei Emunim & Talmud Torah Bnei Simon Israel v Town of Fallsburg, 78 NY2d 194). However, because the petitioner did not, as a matter of law, meet its burden of demonstrating that it is entitled to a full exemption (see, Matter of New York Botanical Garden v Assessors of Town of Washington, 55 NY2d 328, 334), the court erred in granting the petition without conducting a hearing.

While there is no dispute that the petitioner is organized and conducted exclusively for an exempt purpose (see, RPTL 420-a [1] [a]), the record does not sufficiently establish that the petitioner’s property is used primarily for that exempt purpose (see, Mohonk Trust v Board of Assessors, 47 NY2d 476, 483). The questions of fact raised in this proceeding should be resolved at a hearing (see, CPLR 7804 [h]).

The appellants’ remaining contention is without merit (see, RPTL 420-a [11]). Copertino, J. P., Sullivan, Pizzuto and Lerner, JJ., concur.

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

—In a proceeding pursuant to CPLR [292]*292article 78, inter alia, to review a determination denying the petitioner a full property tax exemption pursuant to Real Property Tax Law § 420-a, the City of Poughkeepsie and Deborah Regula, as Assessor of the City of Poughkeepsie, appeal from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Dutchess County (Jiudice, J.), entered December 4, 1996, which granted the petition.

Ordered that the judgment is reversed, on the law, without costs or disbursements, and the matter is remitted to the Supreme Court, Dutchess County, for a hearing in accordance herewith.

The appellants granted the petitioner, a nonprofit corporation, a partial property tax exemption for the 1996 tax year. The petitioner then commenced this proceeding claiming that it is entitled to a full exemption pursuant to RPTL 420-a (1) (a). The Supreme Court granted the petition.

The court properly determined that this proceeding is not time-barred (see, Matter of Adventist Home v Board of Assessors, 83 NY2d 878; Kahal Bnei Emunim & Talmud Torah Bnei Simon Israel v Town of Fallsburg, 78 NY2d 194). However, because the petitioner did not, as a matter of law, meet its burden of demonstrating that it is entitled to a full exemption (see, Matter of New York Botanical Garden v Assessors of Town of Washington, 55 NY2d 328, 334), the court erred in granting the petition without conducting a hearing.

While there is no dispute that the petitioner is organized and conducted exclusively for an exempt purpose (see, RPTL 420-a [1] [a]), the record does not sufficiently establish that the petitioner’s property is used primarily for that exempt purpose (see, Mohonk Trust v Board of Assessors, 47 NY2d 476, 483). The questions of fact raised in this proceeding should be resolved at a hearing (see, CPLR 7804 [h]).

The appellants’ remaining contention is without merit (see, RPTL 420-a [11]). Copertino, J. P., Sullivan, Pizzuto and Lerner, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

245 A.D.2d 291, 665 N.Y.S.2d 941, 1997 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 12082, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/mid-hudson-workshop-for-the-disabled-inc-v-city-of-poughkeepsie-nyappdiv-1997.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack