§Why CasetextPricing

In the Matter of Greater Jamaica Development Corporation, et al., Respondents,v.New York City Tax Commission, et al., Appellants.

Brief

11 Cited authorities

  1. Matter of Yeshivath v. Assessor

    79 N.Y.2d 244 (N.Y. 1992)   Cited 69 times
    In Matter of Yeshivath Shearith Hapletah v Assessor of Town of Fallsburg (79 NY2d 244), we considered whether a not-for-profit religious corporation whose primary purpose is the teaching of principles and doctrines of the Jewish faith was entitled to real property tax exemption for a 31-acre parcel of land it owned.

  2. Association of Bar, City of N.Y. v. Lewisohn

    34 N.Y.2d 143 (N.Y. 1974)   Cited 113 times
    Holding that "`exclusive', as used in the context of these exemption statutes, has been held to connote `principal' or `primary'"

  3. Adult Home at Erie Station, Inc. v. Assessor & Board of Assessment Review

    2008 N.Y. Slip Op. 2079 (N.Y. 2008)   Cited 32 times

    Nos. 21, 22. Argued February 5, 2008. Decided March 13, 2008. APPEAL, in the first above-entitled proceeding, by permission of the Court of Appeals, from an order of the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court in the Second Judicial Department, entered January 16, 2007. The Appellate Division (1) reversed, on the law and the facts, so much of an amended order and judgment (one paper) of the Supreme Court, Orange County (Thomas A. Dickerson, J.; op 8 Misc 3d 1010[A], 2005 NY Slip Op 51010[U]), entered

  4. Lackawanna Corp. v. Krakowski

    2009 N.Y. Slip Op. 4738 (N.Y. 2009)   Cited 25 times   1 Legal Analyses
    In Lackawanna, by contrast, we held that the LCDC was not entitled to a real property tax exemption for land that was leased to a for-profit manufacturing firm (Lackawanna, 12 N.Y.3d at 580, 883 N.Y.S.2d 168, 910 N.E.2d 997).

  5. Plattsburgh Airbase Redevelopment Corp. v. Rosenbaum

    101 A.D.3d 21 (N.Y. App. Div. 2012)   Cited 3 times

    2012-10-25 In the Matter of PLATTSBURGH AIRBASE REDEVELOPMENT CORPORATION, Respondent, v. Derek ROSENBAUM, as Assessor of the City of Plattsburgh, et al., Appellants, et al., Respondents. John E. Clute, Corporation Counsel, Plattsburgh, for appellants. Whiteman, Osterman & Hannah, LLP, Albany (Jonathan P. Nye of counsel), for Plattsburgh Airbase Redevelopment Corporation, respondent. SPAIN John E. Clute, Corporation Counsel, Plattsburgh, for appellants. Whiteman, Osterman & Hannah, LLP, Albany (Jonathan

  6. Matter of Genesee Hosp. v. Wagner

    47 A.D.2d 37 (N.Y. App. Div. 1975)   Cited 44 times
    In Genesee Hospital the New York Appellate Court held that private physicians' offices would not meet the "used exclusively for hospital purposes" requirement for tax exempt status.

  7. Swedenborg v. Lewisohn

    40 N.Y.2d 87 (N.Y. 1976)   Cited 32 times
    In Matter of Swedenborg Foundation v Lewisohn (40 N.Y.2d 87) the court, holding that the claim of exemption under section 421 on the ground of conducting educational purposes was invalid, stated (pp 94-95): "It is then urged that the foundation was organized and is conducted exclusively for educational purposes, i.e., to `educate' people as to the writings and views of Emanuel Swedenborg. So to hold in our opinion would involve an unacceptable extension of the concept of education.

  8. Romantini v. Irrgang

    1 A.D.3d 268 (N.Y. App. Div. 2003)   Cited 2 times

    2281 November 20, 2003. Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Charles Ramos, J.), entered October 4, 2002, which, in this action to recover a deposit under a contract of sale, denied defendant's motion to vacate the default judgment entered against him for failure to appear or submit a responsive pleading, and referred the issue of damages to a Special Referee to hear and report with recommendations, unanimously affirmed, without costs. Edward B. Safran, for plaintiff-respondent. Thomas B. Decea

  9. Frye v. Commissioner of Finance

    62 N.Y.2d 841 (N.Y. 1984)   Cited 14 times
    Defining the term for tax purposes

  10. Gospel Volunteers v. Village of Speculator

    29 N.Y.2d 622 (N.Y. 1971)   Cited 27 times

    Argued April 22, 1971 Decided July 7, 1971 Appeal from the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court in the Third Judicial Department, RICHARD D. SIMONS, J. John L. Bell for appellant. Lyman P. Williams for respondent. Order affirmed, with costs. Concur: Chief Judge FULD and Judges BURKE, BREITEL and GIBSON. Judge SCILEPPI dissents and votes to modify in the following opinion in which Judges BERGAN and JASEN concur. SCILEPPI, J. (dissenting). The issue on summary judgment relates to the extent to which

  11. Section 501 - Exemption from tax on corporations, certain trusts, etc

    26 U.S.C. § 501   Cited 3,219 times   285 Legal Analyses
    Granting tax-exempt status to qualified pension plans