TaiLexi AI U.S. Case Law

In re Syracuse Masonic Temple

In the Matter of the Application of Syracuse Masonic Temple, Appellant. City of Syracuse, Respondent

In re Syracuse Masonic Temple, 199 N.E. 780 (N.Y. 1936)
Download
Format
Include

Star paging (*137) is kept for pin cites.

Court
New York Court of Appeals · State Highest Courts
Decided
January 21, 1936
Judges
<italic>Per Curiam.</italic>
Citations
199 N.E. 780270 N.Y. 81936 N.Y. LEXIS 1504

Opinion of the Court — Per Curiam

Per Curiam.

The relator is organized under the provisions of Benevolent Orders Law (Cons. Laws, ch. 3), section 7. Its certificate of incorporation states that the purpose and objects of said corporation shall be “ the acquiring, constructing, maintaining and managing a hall, temple, or other building, or a home for the aged and indigent members of the Masonic order and their dependent widows and orphans, and of collecting and maintaining a library for the use of the bodies uniting to form such corporation, and the entire net income of the property of such corporation shall be exclusively applied, or be used to build, furnish and maintain an asylum, or asylums, a home, or homes, a school or schools, for the free education or relief of the members of the Masonic fraternity, or for the relief, support and care of worthy and indigent members of the fraternity, their wives, widows or orphans.”

*11 It has constructed and maintains a building in the city of Syracuse. It has leased one floor of the building to the Syracuse Masonic Club. The remaining four floors of the building are used and occupied by lodges of the Masonic order as drill halls, lodge rooms, robing rooms, offices and waiting rooms. The relator claims that the building is exempt from taxation under the provisions of subdivision 7 (now subd. 6) of section 4 of the Tax Law (Cons. Laws, ch. 60).

We may assume for the purposes of this appeal, without now deciding, that the relator is a “ fraternal corporation * . * * created to build and maintain a building * * * for its meeting or meetings of the general assembly of its members, or subordinate bodies of such fraternity and for the accommodation of other fraternal bodies or associations ” within the meaning of that subdivision. (Cf.

People ex rel. Masonic Hall Assn.

v. White, 218 App. Div. 38 ; affirmed without opinion, but on answer to certified questions, 244 N. Y. 564 .) Exemptions granted by the same subdivision to corporations organized exclusively for other purposes do not apply to it. To obtain exemption of its real property it must comply with the express condition upon which the real property of corporations like itself are granted exemption.

That condition is that the “ entire net income of [the] real property is exclusively applied or to be used to build, furnish and maintain an asylum or asylums, a home or homes, a school or schools, for the free education or relief of the members of such fraternity or for the relief, support and care of worthy and indigent members of the fraternity, their wives, widows or orphans.” It is not sufficient to include such purposes in the certificate of incorporation, or to provide by resolution that the net income is' to constitute a fund for such purposes. The condition is complied with only where in fact the entire net income “ is exclusively applied or to be used ” for such purposes.

*12 No income of the relator has in fact been applied to such purposes. It claims that the reason is that it has never had any net income and that in accordance with its resolutions whenever its income exceeds its expenses and it enjoys a net income such net income is “to be used ” for such purposes. It has, nevertheless, paid out of income considerable sums in reduction of funded indebtedness and for other purposes which cannot be considered, reasonably, as expenses to be deducted before the net income is arrived at.

The order should be affirmed, with costs.

Crane, Ch. J., Lehman, O’Brien, Hubbs, Loughran and Finch, JJ., concur; Crouch, J., not sitting.

Order affirmed.

How later courts describe this case

No later court has written an explanatory parenthetical about this case yet.

1936: 11937: 11938: 11939: 11942: 11947: 11968: 119362026peak 1936 · 1

Relies on it most ⓘ

  1. Simpson v. Bohon31 So. 2d 406 (Fla. 1947)
  2. People ex rel. Trustees of the Masonic Hall & Asylum Fund v. Miller18 N.E.2d 8 (N.Y. 1938)
  3. In re the Estate of Rathbone170 Misc. 1030 (N.Y. Sur. Ct. 1939)
  4. B'nai B'rith Club, Inc. v. City of New York199 N.E. 781 (N.Y. 1936)
  5. People ex rel. Trustees of Masonic Hall & Asylum Fund v. Miller164 Misc. 726 (N.Y. Sup. Ct. 1937)
  6. People ex rel. Greater Pythian Temple Ass'n v. Miller263 A.D. 978 (1942)

Most recent

  1. Ithaca Masonic Temple Corp. v. Calistri57 Misc. 2d 72 (N.Y. Sup. Ct. 1968)
  2. Simpson v. Bohon31 So. 2d 406 (Fla. 1947)
  3. People ex rel. Greater Pythian Temple Ass'n v. Miller263 A.D. 978 (1942)
  4. In re the Estate of Rathbone170 Misc. 1030 (N.Y. Sur. Ct. 1939)
  5. People ex rel. Trustees of the Masonic Hall & Asylum Fund v. Miller18 N.E.2d 8 (N.Y. 1938)
  6. People ex rel. Trustees of Masonic Hall & Asylum Fund v. Miller164 Misc. 726 (N.Y. Sup. Ct. 1937)

Citing references are not a citator: they show that a later opinion cites this case, not whether it followed, distinguished, or overruled it. Check negative history before relying on this case.

Authorities cited 2

DepthCaseCited by
People ex rel. Masonic Hall Ass'n v. White, 155 N.E. 898 (N.Y. 1927) 11
People ex rel. Masonic Hall Ass'n v. White, 218 A.D. 38 (1926) 11

Keyboard shortcuts

/Focus the search box
j kNext / previous result
EnterOpen the selected result
xAdd / remove the selected result from the download list
n pNext / previous search term in a case
cCopy the citation of the current case
+ −Larger / smaller reading text
?Show this list