People ex rel. Schenectady Odd Fellows Temple Ass'n v. McMillan
This text of 199 A.D. 268 (People ex rel. Schenectady Odd Fellows Temple Ass'n v. McMillan) 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.
Opinion
Judgment unanimously affirmed, with costs, on the opinion of Whitmyer, J., at Special Term.
The.following is the opinion delivered at Special Term: Whitmyer, J.:
This is a proceeding to review the 1920 assessment of $20,000 upon relator’s real property, at the corner of Hawk and State streets, Schenectady, N. Y., solely upon the claim that the property is not assessable, under section 4, subdivision 7, of the Tax Law.
Now, it is well settled that statutes exempting property from general taxation must be strictly construed against the property owner and that exemption may not be presumed, if it- is not plainly expressed. (People ex rel. Young Men’s Assn. v. Sayles, 32 App. Div. 197, 201; afifd., 157 N. Y. 677.) Under this rule, which must be applied here, it seems clear that the section of the Benevolent Orders Law, under which relator was incorporated, and the section of the Tax Law, under which it claims exemption, contemplate a building to be used for lodge purposes, with an occasional use, perhaps, for other fraternal purposes, and not a building devoted to and used for the many and different purposes here shown. (People ex rel. New York Lodge No. 1 v. Purdy, 179 App. Div. [272]*272805, 809; affd., 224 N. Y. 710; People ex rel. Mizpah Lodge v. Burke, 228 id. 245.) And relator’s by-laws specify lodge purposes only. But, even if the statutes and by-laws and the use of the property do not prevent exemption, still the property is not exempt, unless it appears that the entire net income therefrom was and is exclusively applied or to be used for the purposes enumerated in the statute. (People ex rel. New York Lodge No. 1 v. Purdy, supra.) And it has not been so applied, notwithstanding that a net income was shown for 1919, and that one actually existed for 1918, the two years concerning which evidence was given. Relator has not construed the words “ surplus moneys,” as used in its by-laws, in the sense that the words “ entire net income ” are used in the statute. Finally, it should be noted that, while section 6 of the by-laws directs the use of all surplus moneys for certain benevolent purposes, which are within the contemplation of the statute, it also specifies “ such other benevolent or charitable purposes as the board may direct.” This permits the board to direct the use of the surplus for benevolent or charitable purposes not contemplated. For these reasons, it becomes necessary to dismiss the writ.
Amcl. by Laws of 1918, chap.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Related
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
199 A.D. 268, 191 N.Y.S. 946, 1921 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 6650, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-ex-rel-schenectady-odd-fellows-temple-assn-v-mcmillan-nyappdiv-1921.