People ex rel. Syracuse Masonic Temple v. Ostrander

105 Misc. 405
CourtNew York Supreme Court
DecidedDecember 15, 1918
StatusPublished
Cited by10 cases

This text of 105 Misc. 405 (People ex rel. Syracuse Masonic Temple v. Ostrander) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering New York Supreme Court primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
People ex rel. Syracuse Masonic Temple v. Ostrander, 105 Misc. 405 (N.Y. Super. Ct. 1918).

Opinion

Davis, J.

The relator is a corporation organized in 1915 under the Benevolent Orders Law, section 7, which provides: “Any number of Masonic bodies within the state, chartered by the Grand Lodge of Free and Accepted Masons of the State of Hew York * * * may unite in forming a corporation for the purpose of [407]*407acquiring, constructing, maintaining and managing a hall, temple or other building, or a home for the aged and indigent members of such order and their dependent widows and orphans, and of creating, collecting and maintaining a library for the use of the bodies uniting to form such corporation.” Four Masonic lodges in Syracuse united to form said corporation.

The corporation has built and is the owner of the Syracuse Masonic Temple on Montgomery street in the city of Syracuse, where all Masonic bodies and lodges of the city have their place of meeting. The building is á five-story brick building with basement. The basement contains heating apparatus, cloak rooms, lockers, ventilating apparatus, store room and toilet. On the first floor there are offices for the accommodation of the corporation, a large room used as a drill room, for banquets, lectures and balls, a kitchen operated in connection with the large room for banquets, and a lodge room. On the second or mezzanine floor is a balcony connected with a large room, an ante room and an organ loft. On the third and fourth floors there are two lodge rooms with ante rooms, dressing rooms, toilet and storage rooms. On the fifth floor is a directors’ room, a meeting room for the use of the trustees of the corporation, and social rooms consisting of a parlor, card rooms, reading rooms, a small kitchen and a store room, and a billiard room. There are no stores in the building and no part of the building is devoted to any ordinary commercial purpose.

In the year 1917, the city assessors made an assessment on the property of $184,500. This proceeding is to review that assessment, the relator claiming that the. entire property is exempt from taxation.

Subdivision 7 of section 4 of the Tax Law, as amended by chapter 411 of the Laws of 1916, provides [408]*408as follows: The real property of a corporation or association organized exclusively for the moral or mental improvement of men or women, or for religious * ■ * * charitable, benevolent * # * purposes * * * and used exclusively for carrying out thereupon one or more of such purposes, • * * * shall be exempt from taxation. But no such corporation or association shall be entitled to any such exemption if any officer, member or employee thereof shall receive or may be lawfully entitled to receive any pecuniary profit from the operations thereof, except reasonable compensation for services in effecting one or more of such purposes, or as proper beneficiaries of its strictly charitable purposes; or if the organization thereof, for any such avowed purposes be a guise or pretense for directly or indirectly making any other pecuniary profit for such corporation or association, or for any of its members or employees, or if it be not in good faith organized or conducted exclusively for one or more of such purposes, * * *. The real property of any such corporation not so used exclusively for carrying out thereupon one or more of such purposes but leased or otherwise used for other purposes, shall not be exempt, but if a portion only of any lot or building of any such corporation or association is used exclusively for carrying out thereupon one or more of such purposes of any such corporation or association, then such lot or building shall be so exempt only to the extent of the value of the portion so used, and the remaining or other portion, to the extent of the value of such remaining or other portion shall be subject to taxation; * * * and further provided that the real property of any fraternal corporation, association or body created to build and maintain a building or buildings for its meeting or meetings of the general assembly of its members, or subordinate bodies of such fra[409]*409ternity, and for the accommodation of other fraternal bodies or associations, the entire net income of which real property is exclusively applied or to be used to build, furnish and maintain an asylum or asylums, a home or homes, a school or schools, for the free education or relief of the members of such fraternity, or for the relief, support and care of worthy and indigent members of the fraternity, their wives, widows or •orphans, shall be exempt from taxation.”

The purposes and objects of the relator, as stated in its certificate of incorporation, are all those, including those stated in the disjunctive, that are set forth in the sections of the Benevolent Orders Law, and the latter part of subdivision 7 of section 4 of the Tax Law heretofore quoted, in the identical language of the statute; and the foundation was thus laid in forming the corporation for a proper claim for exemption.

It has been judicially determined that a corporation such as the relator is a charitable and benevolent corporation within the meaning of the provisions of the Tax Law relating to exemptions. People ex rel. Crook v. Wells, 179 N. Y. 257. If, therefore, its property is exclusively used for benevolent or charitable purposes, or if the entire net income of its building maintained for the meetings of the general assembly of its members or subordinate bodies “is exclusively applied or to be used ” for one or more of the charities named in the statute, then it is legally entitled to such exemption.

It is admitted that during the year 1917 the drill room in the building was rented on one occasion to the ladies of the Jewish Communal Home, a charitable organization, for the sum of $100; that on another occasion its kitchen was rented to the Syracuse Journal, a newspaper corporation, for ten dollars. Neither of these parties was in any way connected with the [410]*410Masonic order. There was also held a dedication ball, attended by 2,000 people, invited guests from the members of the Masonic order, and the net receipts of the ball, $2,795.98, were turned over to the relator. While the rule is that exemptions from taxation are not favored and such laws are to be strictly construed (People ex rel. Andrews v. Cameron, 140 App. Div. 76; affd., 200 N. Y. 585), it would be, it seems to me, too narrow a view to hold that the mere casual or occasional use of a small portion of the property for some purpose other than the principal or main use to which the property was devoted, would thereby vitiate the claim for exemption on the ground that it was not exclusively devoted to benevolent and charitable purposes. A man might lease a room in his residence on one or two occasions for some meeting without having the building lose it character as a dwelling-house.

No one would claim, I apprehend, that the use of a church parlor or even its auditorium on one or two occasions for some secular meeting, would cause the loss of exemption to the religious society on the ground that its property was not used exclusively for religious purposes. The intent of the statute has a broader significance and contemplates the leasing or use of the building at fixed rates of rental for public entertainments and meetings of various kinds, either regularly or as suitable opportunities occur. People ex rel. Young Men’s Association v. Sayles, 32 App. Div. 197; affd., 157 N. Y. 677; People ex rel. Catholic Union v. Sayles, 32 App. Div. 203; affd., 157 N. Y. 679.

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

Related

Sherwood Forest Country Club v. Litchfield
998 So. 2d 56 (Supreme Court of Louisiana, 2008)
Ithaca Masonic Temple Corp. v. Calistri
57 Misc. 2d 72 (New York Supreme Court, 1968)
Christian Business Men's Committee of Minneapolis, Inc. v. State
38 N.W.2d 803 (Supreme Court of Minnesota, 1949)
People ex rel. Trustees of Masonic Hall v. Farrell
130 Misc. 142 (New York Supreme Court, 1927)
People ex rel. Masonic Hall Ass'n v. White
126 Misc. 661 (New York Supreme Court, 1926)
People ex rel. Troy Masonic Hall Ass'n v. Byrne
125 Misc. 212 (New York Supreme Court, 1925)
People ex rel. Perry Temple Ass'n v. Clark
125 Misc. 625 (New York Supreme Court, 1925)
People ex rel. Silver Lake Mutual Ass'n v. Clark
125 Misc. 622 (New York Supreme Court, 1925)
People ex rel. Lodge v. Clark
125 Misc. 618 (New York Supreme Court, 1924)
In re the Estate of Watkins
118 Misc. 645 (New York Surrogate's Court, 1922)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
105 Misc. 405, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-ex-rel-syracuse-masonic-temple-v-ostrander-nysupct-1918.