Yeshivas Bais Yehudi v. Assessor of Town of Ramapo
In the Matter of Yeshivas Bais Yehudi v. Assessor of the Town of Ramapo
Opinion of the Court
Text extracted by OCR from a scanned original; check the original for exact wording.
— In an action to declare certain property exempt from fixation, petitioner Yeshivas Bais Yehudi appeals from so much of an order and judgment (one paper) of the Supreme Court, Rockland County (Marbach, J.), dated May 25, 1984, as, after a nonjury trial, denied it a 100% exemption and only granted it a 40% exemption.
Order and judgment affirmed, insofar as appealed from, without costs or disbursements.
Petitioner, a corporation organized under the Religious Corporations Law, operates a synagogue and religious school on one of its several properties. Petitioner employs a maintenance person, *745 who devotes approximately two or slightly more days to his employment with petitioner. In exchange for his maintenance services, the employee is given the property in question, rent free, for use as a residence for him and his family. In addition, the part-time employee is self-employed as a house painter.
The primary use of the property furnished as a convenience for the employee is residential, not religious or educational, and such use is not necessary or incidental to carrying out the purposes for which petitioner was organized. The property, on its face, would clearly be ineligible for an exemption (Real Property Tax Law § 420-a [1] [a]; 2 Opns Counsel SBEA No. 19). However, the respondent town did not cross-appeal from the order and judgment granting the 40% exemption. Consequently, we are constrained to affirm this order and judgment, insofar as appealed from (see, Hecht v City of New York, 60 NY2d 57 ; Mertsaris v 73rd Corp., 105 AD2d 67 ). Titone, J. P., Thompson, O’Connor and Rubin, JJ., concur.
How later courts describe this case
Explanatory parentheticals written by citing courts — 2 in all; the most informative distinct ones are shown.
-
(residence used by part-time maintenance person ineligible for exemption as the primary use of the property is residential, not religious or educational)
Cited by 5 cases
View all citing references →Relies on it most ⓘ
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.