Order Minor Conventuals v. Lee
| Decision Date | 26 October 1978 |
| Citation | 64 A.D.2d 227,409 N.Y.S.2d 667 |
| Parties | ORDER MINOR CONVENTUALS, Respondent, v. Ivan LEE, as Assessor of the Town of Maine, et al., Appellants. |
| Court | New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division |
Stuart M. Pearis, Town Atty., Binghamton, for appellants.
Costello, Cooney & Fearon, Syracuse (Charles E. Cooney, Jr., Syracuse, of counsel), for respondent.
John E. Murray, Binghamton (Gerald F. Mollen, of counsel), for Broome County, amicus curiae.
Robert L. Beebe, Albany, for State Div. of Equalization and Assessment, amicus curiae.
Before MAHONEY, P. J., and GREENBLOTT, KANE, STALEY and MAIN, JJ.
Plaintiff, a New York State not-for-profit corporation recognized as tax exempt under the Internal Revenue Code, was created under Chapter 190 of the Laws of 1914 by the Franciscan Fathers, whose membership is limited to the Catholic priesthood, and has among its purposes the acquisition of property and the construction, establishment and maintenance of churches, schools and missions. In 1973 plaintiff acquired 65.59 acres of wooded, hilly land in the semi-rural Town of Maine in Broome County in order to establish a hermitage and retreat center. The property was unimproved at the time of acquisition except for a one-lane access road, but since then the access road has been enlarged to two lanes, the forest area has been cleared of dead trees and debris, a pond has been built, a chapel, hermitage, residence, workshop, garage and parking area have been constructed and a number of small prayer stations have been installed along pathways in the wooded areas. The area intended for use by those who come for retreat and prayer, including pathways and prayer stations yet to be completed, comprises approximately 80% Of the property, with 20% Retained as a buffer at the perimeter of the land.
Plaintiff sought to have the property removed from the tax rolls pursuant to section 421 of the Real Property Tax Law which provides an exemption for real property owned by corporations such as plaintiff and used exclusively for religious purposes. Defendants granted an exemption with regard to the buildings located on the property, but refused to grant an exemption as to the land itself. Plaintiff commenced an action for declaratory judgment seeking to have the property declared exempt under section 421 and for a refund of taxes paid. Following a trial, judgment was entered in favor of plaintiff with respect to the year 1975 and thereafter. This appeal ensued.
Defendants contend, in essence, that since the vast majority of the property has been left in its natural state, the property is being put to no use and, therefore, is not being used exclusively for religious purposes within the meaning of section 421 of the Real Property Tax Law. While a statute creating a tax exemption should be strictly construed against those seeking the benefit of the exemption, the interpretation should not be so narrow and literal that it defeats the exemption's settled purpose (Matter of Association of Bar of City of N. Y. v. Lewisohn, 34 N.Y.2d 143, 153, 356 N.Y.S.2d 555, 561, 313 N.E.2d 30, 34; People ex rel. Watchtower Bible & Tract Soc. v. Haring, 8 N.Y.2d 350, 358, 207 N.Y.S.2d 673 677, 170 N.E.2d 677, 680). Accordingly, "exclusive", as used in section 421, means principal or primary (Id.), and the exemption is warranted where the primary use is necessary or fairly incidental to the maintenance of the purposes for which the corporation was organized (Matter of Shrine of Our Lady of Martyrs at Auriesville v. Board of Assessors of Town of Glen, 40 A.D.2d 75, 337 N.Y.S.2d 786, affd. 33 N.Y.2d 713, 349 N.Y.S.2d 993, 304 N.E.2d 563). Thus, it has been held that property owned by a religious corporation and used primarily as a spiritual retreat is entitled to the exemption (Greater N. Y. Corp. of Seventh-Day Adventists v. Town of Dover, 29 A.D.2d 861, 288 N.Y.S.2d 893, app. dsmd. 23 N.Y.2d 682, 295 N.Y.S.2d 932, 243 N.E.2d 150).
Here, while the property can best be described as underdeveloped, the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Maurer v. Young Life
...also held that property tax exemptions for religious uses should not be narrowly construed. See, e.g., Order Minor Conventuals v. Lee, 64 A.D.2d 227, 409 N.Y.S.2d 667, 668 (1978) ("While a statute creating a tax exemption should be strictly construed against those seeking the benefit of the......
-
Eternal Flame of Hope Ministries, Inc. v. King
...qualify for the exemption despite the fact that a "retreat center is not a church in the narrow sense" ( Order Minor Conventuals v. Lee, 64 A.D.2d 227, 230-231, 409 N.Y.S.2d 667 [1978]; see Matter of World Buddhist Ch'an Jing Ctr., Inc. v. Schoeberl, 45 A.D.3d at 950-951, 846 N.Y.S.2d 392).......
-
Bright Horizon House, Inc. v. Zoning Bd. of Appeals of Town of Henrietta, Monroe County
...112 Misc.2d 336, 342-343, 446 N.Y.S.2d 1015, affd. on other grds., 90 A.D.2d 994, 456 N.Y.S.2d 909; cf. Order Minor Conventuals v. Lee, 64 A.D.2d 227, 231, 409 N.Y.S.2d 667). The Town Code defines an accessory use or structure as one "customarily incidental and subordinate to the principal ......
-
Greentree Found. v. Assessor & Bd. of Assessors of Cnty. of Nassau
...benefits which are part and parcel of the conference/retreat function of the entire property (see Order Minor Conventuals v. Lee, 64 A.D.2d 227, 230–231, 409 N.Y.S.2d 667 ; see also Matter of Paws Unlimited Found., Inc. v. Maloney, 91 A.D.3d 1173, 1175, 937 N.Y.S.2d 423 ; cf. Matter of Worl......