This opinion is uncorrected and subject to revision before publication in the New York Reports. Alan G. Blumberg, for Appellants. Timothy J. O'Shaughnessy, for Respondents. Section 35 provides that, except for projects aided by a state loan, upon dissolution, any surplus in the housing company's treasury, after accounting for various expenses, obligations and the housing company's profit, must be paid to the municipality that granted the housing company a tax exemption.
Petitioners raise two arguments.
Second, petitioners argue that, even if they are not exempt from the surplus requirement, section 35 should be construed so as to permit them to deduct the prepayment of their mortgage debt in calculating their surplus, thereby eliminating any surplus they might have been required to repay. For the reasons that follow, we reject petitioners' contentions. Inc. Petitioners also paid the surplus to respondents, under protest. They then commenced this proceeding. Supreme Court concluded that petitioners owed the surplus.