Building owner, which was a not-for-profit healthcare fund, filed, along with its tenant, which was a for-profit corporation that provided dialysis services for a fee, petition commencing hybrid article 78 and declaratory-judgment action to annul city department of finance’s revocation of building’s status as exempt from real-property taxation.
The Supreme Court, New York County, granted petition. Finance department appealed. The Supreme Court, Appellate Division, affirmed. The Court of Appeals granted the finance department leave to appeal.
The Court of Appeals held that:
- Building was not property-tax exempt under statutory provision allowing for a property-tax exemption for property that was owned by certain not-for-profit entities and that was used for certain not-for-profit purposes, and
- Building was not tax exempt under statutory provision governing that same not-for-profit tax exemption for property that was leased for non-exempt purposes.
Building was not property-tax exempt under statutory provision allowing for a property-tax exemption for property that was owned by certain not-for-profit entities and that was used for certain not-for-profit purposes; building owner was a not-for-profit healthcare fund that did not reside on the premises or otherwise itself use the building in whole or in part for its exempt fundraising purpose, and owner’s tenant was a for-profit corporation that had sole occupancy and used the building during the lease term exclusively to perform its for-charge dialysis services.
Building that was owned by a not-for-profit healthcare fund that did not reside on the premises or otherwise itself use the building in whole or in part for its exempt fundraising purpose was not property-tax exempt under statutory provision governing the property-tax exemption for property that had a particular kind of not-for-profit owner but was leased for non-exempt purposes; building was leased and used solely for pecuniary gain by a for-profit corporation that performed dialysis services for a fee.