Drug Policy Alliance v. N.Y.C. Taxi Comm'n
| Decision Date | 01 September 2015 |
| Docket Number | Nos. 14624, 103827/12.,s. 14624, 103827/12. |
| Citation | 131 A.D.3d 815,15 N.Y.S.3d 784,2015 N.Y. Slip Op. 06693 |
| Parties | In re DRUG POLICY ALLIANCE, Petitioner–Respondent, v. The NEW YORK CITY TAX COMMISSION, et al., Respondents–Appellants. |
| Court | New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division |
131 A.D.3d 815
15 N.Y.S.3d 784
2015 N.Y. Slip Op. 06693
In re DRUG POLICY ALLIANCE, Petitioner–Respondent
v.
The NEW YORK CITY TAX COMMISSION, et al., Respondents–Appellants.
Nos. 14624, 103827/12.
Supreme Court, Appellate Division, First Department, New York.
Sept. 1, 2015.
Zachary W. Carter, Corporation Counsel, New York (Barbara Moretti of counsel), for appellants.
Fried, Frank, Harris, Shriver & Jacobson, LLP, New York (William Josephson of counsel), for respondent.
GONZALEZ, P.J., ACOSTA, MOSKOWITZ, FEINMAN, JJ.
Opinion
Order and judgment (one paper), Supreme Court, New York County (Paul Wooten, J.), entered December 30, 2013, which denied respondents' motion to dismiss the petition and granted the petition to annul respondent New York City Department of Finance's determination, dated October 20, 2011, denying petitioner's application for a real property tax exemption pursuant to Real Property Tax Law § 420–a, and directed the Department of Finance to grant petitioner a tax exemption, unanimously modified, on the law, to vacate the grant of the petition and remand the matter to Supreme Court for further proceedings consistent with this decision, and otherwise affirmed, without costs.
Petitioner, a not-for-profit association, was denied tax-exempt status for its headquarters located on West 33rd Street in
New York County. It commenced a CPLR article 78 proceeding, arguing that the determination was arbitrary and capricious and that given the nature of its focus, its free speech, equal protection, and due process rights were violated. Respondents moved pre-answer to dismiss the petition pursuant to CPLR 3211(a)(7) on the ground that petitioner does not qualify for a real estate tax exemption and therefore has no cause of action. There was discussion at oral argument before Supreme Court about...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
People v. N. Leasing Sys., Inc.
...AMRO Bank, N.V. v. MBIA Inc. , 17 N.Y.3d 208, 227, 928 N.Y.S.2d 647, 952 N.E.2d 463 (2011) ; Drug Policy Alliance v. New York City Tax Comm'n , 131 A.D.3d 815, 816, 15 N.Y.S.3d 784 (1st Dep't 2015). Dismissal is warranted only if the petition fails to allege facts that fit within any cogniz......
-
Agolli ex rel. All Other Persons Similarly Situated Who Were Employed By PS Contracting of NJ Inc. v. PS Contracting of NJ Inc.
...N.Y., Inc., 20 N.Y.3d 342, 351 (2013); ABN AMRO Bank, N.V. v. MBIA Inc., 17 N.Y.3d 208, 227 (2011); Drug Policy Alliance v. New York City Tax Comm'n, 131 A.D.3d 815, 816 (1st Dep't 2015). Dismissal is warranted only if the complaint fails to allege facts that fit within any cognizable legal......