From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Matter of Storm King Art Center v. Tiffany

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Feb 20, 2001
280 A.D.2d 606 (N.Y. App. Div. 2001)

Opinion

Argued January 16, 2001

February 20, 2001.

In a proceeding pursuant to Real Property Tax Law article 7 to review a determination of Roland Tiffany, as Assessor of the Town of Cornwall, Orange County, New York, and the Town of Cornwall, to place the petitioner's property on the real property tax rolls of the Town of Cornwall, the appeal is from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Orange County (Palella, J.), dated December 1, 1999, which, upon an order of the same court dated October 8, 1999, granting the motion of the petitioner, Storm King Art Center, for summary judgment on the petition, and denying the cross motion of Roland Tiffany, as Assessor of the Town of Cornwall, Orange County, New York, and the Town of Cornwall, for summary judgment dismissing the petition, granted the petition and set aside the determination.

Cusick, Hacker Murphy, LLP, Latham, N.Y. (Daniel G. Vincelette of counsel), for appellants.

Ronald S. Kossar, Middletown, N.Y., for respondent.

Before: RITTER, J.P., KRAUSMAN, McGINITY, SMITH, JJ.


DECISION ORDER

ORDERED that the judgment is affirmed, with costs.

To qualify for a tax exemption under RPTL 420-a(1)(a), real property must be owned by a nonprofit corporation or association that is organized or conducted for one or more exempt purposes, and the property itself must be used primarily for such purposes (see, Mohonk Trust v. Board of Assessors of Town of Gardiner, 47 N.Y.2d 476; Adirondack Land Trust v. Town of Putnam, 203 A.D.2d 861). Purposes and uses which are merely auxiliary or incidental to the main and exempt purpose and use will not defeat the exemption (see, Mohonk Trust v. Board of Assessors of Town of Gardiner, supra, at 481). The petitioner provided a rational basis for the Supreme Court's conclusion that the subject property was used primarily for purposes integral and necessary to the exempt purposes of the operation of the art center (see, Matter of Yeshivath Shearith Hapletah v. Assessor of the Town of Fallsburg, 79 N.Y.2d 244, 249). The appellants failed to raise a triable issue of fact to defeat this showing (see, Scenic Hudson Land Trust v. Sarvis, 234 A.D.2d 301).

The Supreme Court's decision contains the essential facts upon which the ultimate finding of facts were made (see, Blue Hill Plaza Assocs. v. Assessor of the Town of Orangetown, 230 A.D.2d 846, 847).

The appellants' remaining contentions are without merit.


Summaries of

Matter of Storm King Art Center v. Tiffany

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Feb 20, 2001
280 A.D.2d 606 (N.Y. App. Div. 2001)
Case details for

Matter of Storm King Art Center v. Tiffany

Case Details

Full title:IN THE MATTER OF STORM KING ART CENTER, RESPONDENT, v. ROLAND TIFFANY…

Court:Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department

Date published: Feb 20, 2001

Citations

280 A.D.2d 606 (N.Y. App. Div. 2001)
720 N.Y.S.2d 548

Citing Cases

Sephardic v. Ramapo

While acknowledging that exemption statutes are strictly construed against the taxpayer, to avoid defeating…

Pets Alive, Inc. v. Wanat

The Supreme Court granted the petition and, inter alia, directed the Town to place the subject properties on…