S.N.H.N.C.Y.I., Inc. v. City of Mount Vernon

5 A.D.3d 495, 772 N.Y.S.2d 593
CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York
DecidedMarch 8, 2004
StatusPublished
Cited by2 cases

This text of 5 A.D.3d 495 (S.N.H.N.C.Y.I., Inc. v. City of Mount Vernon) 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
S.N.H.N.C.Y.I., Inc. v. City of Mount Vernon, 5 A.D.3d 495, 772 N.Y.S.2d 593 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2004).

Opinion

In a proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78 to review a determination of the Board of Assessment Review of the City of Mount Vernon, revoking the petitioner’s tax exemption pursuant to Real Property Tax Law § 420-a, the City of Mount Vernon and the Board of Assessment Review of the City of Mount Vernon appeal from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Westchester County (Rosato, J.), entered November 6, 2002, which granted the petition.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed, with costs.

Real Property Tax Law § 420-a provides a mandatory exemption from the payment of real property taxes for real property which is used exclusively for one or more tax-exempt purposes and is owned by a tax-exempt organization (see RPTL 420-a; Mohonk Trust v Board of Assessors of Town of Gardiner, 47 NY2d 476, 482 [1979]; Matter of Pets Alive v Wanat, 288 AD2d 386, 387 [2001]; Matter of Storm King Art Ctr. v Tiffany, 280 AD2d 606 [2001]; Matter of Scenic Hudson Land Trust v Sarvis, 234 AD2d 301, 303 [1996]).

The appellants failed to raise an issue of fact that would have required the Supreme Court to conduct a hearing on the petitioner’s request to be restored to tax-exempt status (see Matter of Regional Economic Community Action Program v Ritter, 270 AD2d 492 [2000]; cf. Matter of Miriam Osborn Mem. Home Assn. v Assessor of City of Rye, 275 AD2d 714, 716 [2000]; Matter of Mid-Hudson Workshop for the Disabled v City of Poughkeepsie, 245 AD2d 291, 292). The Supreme Court correctly concluded that the subject property was used for purposes integral to the exempt purposes of the operation of the corpora[496]*496tion and granted the petition (see Matter of Pets Alive v Wanat, supra). Ritter, J.P., Santucci, Adams and Crane, JJ., concur.

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

Related

Sephardic Congregation v. Town of Ramapo
47 A.D.3d 915 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2008)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
5 A.D.3d 495, 772 N.Y.S.2d 593, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/snhncyi-inc-v-city-of-mount-vernon-nyappdiv-2004.