United Church Residences
v.
Newell

Not overruled or negatively treated on appealinfoCoverage
Court of Appeals of the State of New YorkJun 26, 2008
10 N.Y.3d 922 (N.Y. 2008)
10 N.Y.3d 922892 N.E.2d 392862 N.Y.S.2d 3272008 N.Y. Slip Op. 5782

Cases citing this case

How cited

  • In re Lake Forest Senior

    …Corp. v Wagner, 66 AD2d at 999). Thus, petitioner's provision of housing to middle-income seniors at market…

  • In re Ass. for Neighborhood Inc.

    …of Assessment Review of City of Middletown, 10 NY3d 205, 214-215). The fact that government subsidies raise…

lock 3 Citing caseskeyboard_arrow_right

No. 185 SSM 18.

Decided June 26, 2008.

APPEAL, by permission of the Court of Appeals, from an order of the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court in the Fourth Judicial Department, entered September 28, 2007. The Appellate Division (1) reversed, on the law, a judgment (denominated order) of the Supreme Court, Chautauqua County (Paula L. Feroleto, J.; op 12 Misc 3d 1193[A], 2006 NY Slip Op 51558[U]), entered in a proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78, which had granted a petition and annulled the determination of respondent assessor denying petitioner's application for a real property tax exemption pursuant to RPTL 420-a, and (2) dismissed the petition.

Petitioner not-for-profit corporation owned property consisting of residential units constructed using financing obtained from the United States Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD). Petitioner provided this housing to low-income elderly individuals who paid a portion of their monthly income toward rent. The remainder of the rent was subsidized by HUD.

Matter of United Church Residences of Fredonia, N.Y., Inc. v Newell, 43 AD3d 1403, reversed.

Rupp, Baase, Pfalzgraf Cunningham Coppola LLC, Buffalo ( David R. Pfalzgraf Jr., of counsel), for appellant. Foley, Foley Passafaro, Dunkirk ( Jeffrey G. Passafaro of counsel), for respondents.

Before: Chief Judge KAYE and Judges CIPARICK, GRAFFEO, READ, SMITH, PIGOTT and JONES concur in memorandum.


OPINION OF THE COURT

The Appellate Division order should be reversed, with costs, and the order of Supreme Court reinstated.

On these facts, the Appellate Division erred in determining that petitioner's receipt of United States Department of Housing and Urban Development subsidies, raising the rent received for their low-income housing units for the elderly to the equivalent of market rates, removed them from RPTL 420-a tax exemption ( see Matter of Adult Home at Erie Sta., Inc. v Assessor Bd. of Assessment Review of City of Middletown, 10 NY3d 205).

On review of submissions pursuant to section 500.11 of the Rules of the Court of Appeals ( 22 NYCRR 500.11), order reversed, etc.