Learn About the Law
Get help with your legal needs
FindLaw’s Learn About the Law features thousands of informational articles to help you understand your options. And if you’re ready to hire an attorney, find one in your area who can help.
IN RE: STORM KING ART CENTER, Respondent, v. Roland TIFFANY, etc., et al., Appellants.
In a proceeding pursuant to Real Property Tax Law article 7 to review a determination of Roland Tiffany, as Assessor of the Town of Cornwall, Orange County, New York, and the Town of Cornwall, to place the petitioner's property on the real property tax rolls of the Town of Cornwall, the appeal is from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Orange County (Palella, J.), dated December 1, 1999, which, upon an order of the same court dated October 8, 1999, granting the motion of the petitioner, Storm King Art Center, for summary judgment on the petition, and denying the cross motion of Roland Tiffany, as Assessor of the Town of Cornwall, Orange County, New York, and the Town of Cornwall, for summary judgment dismissing the petition, granted the petition and set aside the determination.
ORDERED that the judgment is affirmed, with costs.
To qualify for a tax exemption under RPTL 420-a(1)(a), real property must be owned by a nonprofit corporation or association that is organized or conducted for one or more exempt purposes, and the property itself must be used primarily for such purposes (see, Mohonk Trust v. Board of Assessors of Town of Gardiner, 47 N.Y.2d 476, 418 N.Y.S.2d 763, 392 N.E.2d 876; Adirondack Land Trust v. Town of Putnam, 203 A.D.2d 861, 611 N.Y.S.2d 332). Purposes and uses which are merely auxiliary or incidental to the main and exempt purpose and use will not defeat the exemption (see, Mohonk Trust v. Board of Assessors of Town of Gardiner, supra, at 481, 418 N.Y.S.2d 763, 392 N.E.2d 876). The petitioner provided a rational basis for the Supreme Court's conclusion that the subject property was used primarily for purposes integral and necessary to the exempt purposes of the operation of the art center (see, Matter of Yeshivath Shearith Hapletah v. Assessor of the Town of Fallsburg, 79 N.Y.2d 244, 249, 582 N.Y.S.2d 54, 590 N.E.2d 1182). The appellants failed to raise a triable issue of fact to defeat this showing (see, Scenic Hudson Land Trust v. Sarvis, 234 A.D.2d 301, 651 N.Y.S.2d 65).
The Supreme Court's decision contains the essential facts upon which the ultimate finding of facts were made (see, Blue Hill Plaza Assocs. v. Assessor of the Town of Orangetown, 230 A.D.2d 846, 847, 646 N.Y.S.2d 836).
The appellants' remaining contentions are without merit.
Thank you for your feedback!
As the largest network of trusted legal brands, we help firms build authority across the platforms consumers and AI systems rely on most. Our network helps attorneys strengthen visibility, credibility, and preference where legal decisions begin.
Decided: February 20, 2001
Court: Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Second Department, New York.
Search our directory by legal issue
Enter information in one or both fields (Required)
Harness the power of our directory with your own profile. Select the button below to sign up.
Learn more about FindLaw’s newsletters, including our terms of use and privacy policy.
Get help with your legal needs
FindLaw’s Learn About the Law features thousands of informational articles to help you understand your options. And if you’re ready to hire an attorney, find one in your area who can help.
Search our directory by legal issue
Enter information in one or both fields (Required)