Case Name: The People of the State of New York ex rel. Rye Country Day School, Respondent, v. Frederick G. Schmidt et al., Constituting the Town Board of the Town of Rye, Appellants
Court: New York Court of Appeals
Jurisdiction: New York
Decision Date: 1935-01-24
Citations: 266 N.Y. 196
Docket Number: 
Parties: The People of the State of New York ex rel. Rye Country Day School, Respondent, v. Frederick G. Schmidt et al., Constituting the Town Board of the Town of Rye, Appellants.
Judges: 
Reporter: New York Reports
Volume: 266
Pages: 196–198

Head Matter:
The People of the State of New York ex rel. Rye Country Day School, Respondent, v. Frederick G. Schmidt et al., Constituting the Town Board of the Town of Rye, Appellants.
(Submitted January 14, 1935;
decided January 24, 1935.)
John Coward, Munn Brewer and J. Henry Esser for appellants.
The relator was not a corporation the real property of which is exempt from taxation. (Cons. Laws, ch. 60, § 4, subd. 6; People ex rel. Mizpah Lodge v. Burke, 228 N. Y. 245; People ex rel. D. K. E. Society v. Lawler, 74 App. Div. 553; 179 N. Y. 535; People ex rel. Andrews v. Cameron, 140 App. Div. 76; 200 N. Y. 585; People ex rel. Young Men’s Assn. v. Sayles, 32 App. Div. 197; People ex rel. N. Y. Lodge v. Purdy, 179 App. Div. 805; 224 N. Y. 710; People ex rel. Savings Bank v. Coleman, 135 N. Y. 231; People ex rel. Manlius School v. Adams, 143 Misc. Rep. 459.)
Paul Windels, Corporation Counsel (Isaac Phillips of counsel), for the City of New York, amicus curiœ.
The petitioner’s real property is not exempt from taxation. (Cons. Laws, ch. 60, § 4, subd. 6.)
Richard Ely for respondent.
The real property of the petitioner is and was exempt from taxation. (Y.W.C.A. v. City of New York, 217 App. Div. 406; 245 N. Y. 562; Y. W. C. A. of Brooklyn v. City of New York, 254 N. Y. 558; People ex rel. Trustees of Mt. Pleasant School v. Metzger, 98 App. Div. 237; Matter of Mary Immaculate School, 188 App. Div. 5; People ex rel. Masters School v. Keys, 178 App. Div. 677; People ex rel. Manlius School v. Adams, 143 Misc. Rep. 459.)
James Marshall, as amicus curiœ.

Opinion:
Per Curiam.
The corporate operation of the respondent may lawfully entitle some of its members to receive pecuniary profit other than reasonable compensation for services in effecting any of its educational purposes.
The order of the Appellate Division should be reversed and that of Special Term affirmed, with costs in this court and in the Appellate Division.
Ceane, Ch. J., O'Bbien, Hubbs, Cbottch, Loughban and Finch, JJ., concur; Lehman, J., not voting.
Ordered accordingly.