IN RE: Congregation Radin Development (2026)

Argued—March 5, 2026

DECISION & ORDER

M/

In related proceedings pursuant to Real Property Tax Law article 7 to review real property tax assessments for the tax years 2020 to 2023, and a related action to cancel retroactive tax assessments, Congregation Radin Development, Inc., the petitioner in Matter No. 1 and the plaintiff in Matter No. 2, appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Rockland County (Amy S. Puerto, J.), dated September 27, 2024.  The order granted that branch of the motion of Town of Ramapo and Board of Assessment Review of the Town of Ramapo, the respondents in Matter No. 1 and defendants in Matter No. 2, and Scott Shedler, a defendant in Matter No. 2, which was for summary judgment dismissing the petitions and, in effect, granted that branch of those parties' motion which was for summary judgment dismissing the complaint insofar as asserted against them.

ORDERED that the order is affirmed, with costs.

Congregation Radin Development, Inc. (hereinafter Congregation), owns certain real property located in the Town of Ramapo, which has a property classification code designation used for commercial residential apartments.  Congregation commenced four proceedings pursuant to Real Property Tax Law article 7, alleging that it was a religious organization entitled to a 100% real property tax exemption for the tax years 2020 to 2023.  Congregation also commenced a related action to cancel retroactive tax assessments.  The proceedings and the action were joined for all purposes.  Subsequently, in two orders, both dated December 21, 2023, the Supreme Court, inter alia, granted that branch of the motion of Town of Ramapo, Board of Assessment Review of the Town of Ramapo, and Scott Shedler (hereinafter collectively the respondents) which was pursuant to CPLR 3126 to preclude Congregation from producing in evidence certain items of documentary evidence, or witness or expert testimony relating to such items of documentary evidence, that it had not produced in response to the respondents' discovery demands, including, among other things, annual financial reports or statements and corporate books and records.  On a related appeal, this Court affirmed the orders dated December 21, 2023, insofar as appealed from (see Matter of Congregation Radin Dev., Inc. v Town of Ramapo, _ AD3d _ [Appellate Division Docket No. 2024–01634;  decided herewith] ).

In January 2024, the respondents moved for summary dismissing the petitions and the complaint insofar as asserted against them, contending, inter alia, that Congregation did not satisfy the criteria for a real property tax exemption pursuant to RPTL 420–a.  In an order dated September 27, 2024, the Supreme Court granted that branch of the respondents' motion which was for summary judgment dismissing the petitions and, in effect, granted that branch of their motion which was for summary judgment dismissing the complaint insofar as asserted against them.  Congregation appeals.

RPTL 420–a(1)(a) provides, among other things, that “[r]eal property owned by a corporation or association organized or conducted exclusively for religious, charitable, hospital, [or] educational ․ purposes ․ and used exclusively for carrying out thereupon one or more of such purposes[,] ․ shall be exempt from taxation” (see Sephardic Congregation of S. Monsey v Town of Ramapo, 47 AD3d 915, 917).  “In order for an entity to be entitled to this tax exemption, (1) the entity must be organized exclusively for purposes enumerated in the statute, (2) the property in question must be used primarily for the furtherance of such purposes, ․ (3) no pecuniary profit, apart from reasonable compensation, may inure to the benefit of any officers, members, or employees, and (4) the entity may not be simply used as a guise for profit-making operations” (Matter of Miriam Osborn Mem. Home Assn. v Assessor of City of Rye, 275 A.D.2d 714, 715;  see Congregation Ateres Yisroel v Town of Ramapo, 146 AD3d 857, 858).

Here, the respondents' submissions in support of their motion were sufficient to establish, prima facie, that Congregation was not organized or conducted exclusively for exempt purposes and that a pecuniary profit, apart from reasonable compensation, could inure to the benefit of Congregation's officers or members, thereby prohibiting Congregation from receiving a real property tax exemption pursuant to RPTL 420–a (see Matter of Long Is. Found. for Educ. & Jewish Research v Michael, 97 A.D.2d 843).  In opposition, Congregation failed to raise a triable issue of fact (see Alvarez v. Prospect Hosp., 68 N.Y.2d 320, 324;  cf.  Matter of Congregation Yeshiva Yoreh Deah Inc. v Ozomek, 245 AD3d 1077, 1080).

Accordingly, the Supreme Court properly granted that branch of the respondents' motion which was for summary judgment dismissing the petitions and properly, in effect, granted that branch of their motion which was for summary judgment dismissing the complaint insofar as asserted against them.

In light of our determination, we need not reach the parties' remaining contentions.

GENOVESI, J.P., WARHIT, GOLIA and HOM, JJ., concur.

ENTER:

Darrell M. Joseph

Clerk of the Court