Metropolitan Bank of Syracuse v. Department of Assessment of City of Syracuse

• Decision Date: 27 May 1977
• Citation: 395 N.Y.S.2d 569,57 A.D.2d 1055
• Parties: Application of METROPOLITAN BANK OF SYRACUSE, Respondent-Appellant, v. The DEPARTMENT OF ASSESSMENT OF the CITY OF SYRACUSE, New York, Appellant-Respondent.
• Court: New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division

Page 569

395 N.Y.S.2d 569

57 A.D.2d 1055

Application of METROPOLITAN BANK OF SYRACUSE, Respondent-Appellant, v. The DEPARTMENT OF ASSESSMENT OF the CITY OF SYRACUSE, New York, Appellant-Respondent.

Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Fourth Department.

May 27, 1977.

David M. Garber, Corp. Counsel, Eleanor Theodore, Syracuse, for appellant-respondent.

Costello, Cooney & Fearon, Charles E. Cooney, Jr., Syracuse, for respondent-appellant.

Before MOULE, J. P., and CARDAMONE, SIMONS, DILLON and WITMER, JJ.

MEMORANDUM:

Under section 102, subdivision 12 (d) of the Real Property Tax Law respondent increased petitioner's real property assessment in the sum of $20,000, because petitioner installed and used (1) a silent alarm system, including surveillance cameras, an R.C.A. teletype machine and a telecopier machine and (2) a vault alarm system. Those alarm systems were installed ten years ago but respondent only recently decided to tax them. Petitioner instituted this proceeding for a determination that such property is not taxable under that section of the law. The basis of respondent's action in adding those items of property to the assessment was the fact that each was connected to the lines of the New York Telephone Company of which petitioner is a subscriber, and respondent assumed that that made them taxable just as they would be taxable if owned by a telephone company (see Matter of New York Telephone Company (Canough), 290 N.Y. 537, 49 N.E.2d 999; People ex rel. Holmes Electric Protective Co. v. Chambers, 1 Misc.2d 990, 125 N.Y.S.2d 436, affd. 285 App.Div. 886, 139 N.Y.S.2d 245, affd. 1 N.Y.2d 760, 152 N.Y.S.2d 304, 135 N.E.2d 56; Matter of New York Telephone Company v. Ferris, 257 App.Div. 415, 13 N.Y.S.2d 359, affd. 282 N.Y. 667, 26 N.E.2d 805).

The teletype and telecopier machines are owned by the telephone company and leased to petitioner at a monthly rental. The surveillance cameras for the silent alarm system are movable, and their only connection with telephone company lines is that they are activated by the same button which an employee may push to signal an alarm to the Public Safety Building. Since the silent alarm cameras are detachable and the teletype and telecopier machines are not owned by petitioner, Special Term declared that they are not taxable under section 102, subdivision 12(d) of the Real Property Tax Law, and we agree (see Matter of Crystal v. City of Syracuse, 47 A.D.2d 29, 364 N.Y.S.2d 618, affd. on opinion of Simons, J., 38 N.Y.2d 883, 382 N.Y.S.2d 745, 346 N.E.2d 546).

With respect to the vault alarm system, however,...