§Why CasetextPricing

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

Brief

33 Cited authorities

  1. Matter of Featherstone v. Franco

    95 N.Y.2d 550 (N.Y. 2000)   Cited 385 times
    Affirming rejection of Article 78 case

  2. Jones v. Bill

    10 N.Y.3d 550 (N.Y. 2008)   Cited 57 times
    In Jones v. Bill, 10 N.Y.3d 550, 860 N.Y.S.2d 769, 890 N.E.2d 884 (2008), a case that had not yet been decided when the district court decided the case below, the New York Court of Appeals applied CPLR § 304(a) and held that, for purposes of the Graves Amendment, an action commenced when the complaint was originally filed, not when the lessor was later joined as a defendant with an amended summons and complaint.

  3. 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'"

  4. 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

  5. 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).

  6. Rocky Point Drive-In, L.P. v. Town of Brookhaven

    2013 N.Y. Slip Op. 7513 (N.Y. 2013)   Cited 19 times

    11-14-2013 ROCKY POINT DRIVE–IN, L.P., Appellant, v. TOWN OF BROOKHAVEN et al., Respondents. Bracken Margolin Besunder LLP, Islandia (Linda U. Margolin of counsel), for appellant. Jaspan Schlesinger LLP, Garden City (Maureen T. Liccione and Robert V. Guido of counsel), and Annette Eaderesto, Town Attorney, Farmingville, for respondents. Davis & Prager, P.C., Patchogue (Larry Ray Davis of counsel), for Long Island Builders Institute, Inc., amicus curiae. Sarah Brancatella, Albany, for Association

  7. Mohonk Trust v. Assessors

    47 N.Y.2d 476 (N.Y. 1979)   Cited 63 times
    Concluding that a trust whose purpose was “preservation of wilderness areas for the benefit of the public” was entitled to exemption pursuant to statute exempting property used exclusively for “religious, charitable, hospital, educational, moral or mental improvement of men, women or children or cemetery purposes”

  8. In re Miriam Osborn Memorial Home Association

    80 A.D.3d 118 (N.Y. App. Div. 2010)   Cited 13 times   1 Legal Analyses

    No. 2008-05080. October 12, 2010. CROSS APPEALS from an order and judgment (one paper) of the Supreme Court, Westchester County (John R. La Cava, J.), entered April 17, 2008 upon two decisions of that court (Thomas A. Dickerson, J.), dated December 30, 2006, and June 5, 2007, respectively, following a nonjury trial, in proceedings pursuant to Real Property Tax Law article 7 to review real property tax assessments for the tax years 1997 through 2003. The order and judgment, insofar as appealed from

  9. People ex Rel. Watchtower Soc. v. Haring

    8 N.Y.2d 350 (N.Y. 1960)   Cited 97 times
    In People ex rel. Watchtower Bible Tract Soc. v. Haring (8 N.Y.2d 350, 358) Chief Judge DESMOND writing for the court said, with reference to construction of the exemption statute: "While an exemption statute is to be construed strictly against those arguing for nontaxability (People ex rel. Mizpah Lodge v. Burke, 228 N.Y. 245), the interpretation should not be so narrow and literal as to defeat its settled purpose, which in this instance is that of encouraging, fostering and protecting religious and educational institutions."

  10. Debevoise v. N Y Dept of Fin

    80 N.Y.2d 657 (N.Y. 1993)   Cited 32 times

    Argued January 7, 1993 Decided February 11, 1993 Appeal from the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court in the First Judicial Department, Beverly S. Cohen, J. Robert Abrams, Attorney-General, New York City (Laura M. Nath, Jerry Boone and Frederic L. Lieberman of counsel), for appellants. Debevoise Plimpton, New York City (Andrew C. Hartzell, John S. Kiernan and Robert D. Goodman of counsel), respondent pro se. O. Peter Sherwood, Corporation Counsel of New York City (Edward F.X. Hart and Frances

  11. Section 1.501(c)(3)-1 - Organizations organized and operated for religious, charitable, scientific, testing for public safety, literary, or educational purposes, or for the prevention of cruelty to children or animals

    26 C.F.R. § 1.501(c)(3)-1   Cited 47 times
    Describing the requirements for the 501(c) exemption