Court Opinion

ID: 2752428
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2014-11-18 14:04:55.908837+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T10:04:48.757382
License: Public Domain

OPINION OF THE COURT
 

  Memorandum.
 

  The order of the Appellate Division should be affirmed, with costs.
 

  Petitioner, a not-for-profit religious corporation that owns real property in the Town of Catskill, commenced proceedings pursuant to CPLR article 78 and RPTL article 7 after respondent Board of Assessment Review for the Town refused petitioner’s 2009, 2010 and 2011 applications for tax-exempt status pursuant to RPTL 420-a. Under that provision, real property owned by a corporation that is “organized or conducted exclusively” for charitable and/or religious purposes, if “used exclusively” for such purposes, “shall be exempt from taxation” (RPTL 420-a [1] [a]). We have defined the term “exclusively” as used in this context “to connote ‘principal’ or ‘primary’ such that purposes and uses merely ‘auxiliary or incidental to the main and exempt purpose and use will not defeat the exemption’ ”
  
   (Matter of Yeshivath Shearith Hapletah v Assessor of Town of Fallsburg,
  
  79 NY2d 244, 249 [1992], quoting
  
   Matter of Association of Bar of City of N.Y. v Lewisohn,
  
  34 NY2d 143, 153 [1974]).
 

  After a nonjury trial, where petitioner called four witnesses and respondents called none, the trial court dismissed the petitions on the ground that the religious and charitable uses of the subject property were incidental to petitioner’s primary, nonexempt use of providing affordable cooperative housing. The Appellate Division reversed and granted the petitions, holding that the testimony at trial by petitioner’s witnesses demonstrated that petitioner “uses the property primarily for its religious and charitable purposes” and was therefore entitled to a property tax exemption for the years in question (111 AD3d 1098, 1102 [3d Dept 2013]).
 

  The Appellate Division properly granted the petitions. Petitioner adequately established its entitlement to the RPTL
   
   *1025
   
  420-a exemption, as the proof at the trial established that petitioner “exclusively” utilized the property in furtherance of its religious and charitable purposes.
 

  Chief Judge Lippman and Judges Graffeo, Read, Smith, Pigott, Rivera and Abdus-Salaam concur.
 

  Order affirmed, with costs, in a memorandum.