4 N.Y.3d 580 (2005)
A privately owned property leased to a charter school is not automatically exempt from real property taxes under Education Law § 2853(1)(d); the charter school’s tax exemption extends only to the same extent as other public schools, which generally applies to property owned, not leased, by the school.
Summary
Charter Development Company (CDC) sought a real property tax exemption for a property it owned and leased to a charter school, arguing that Education Law § 2853(1)(d) granted such an exemption. The City of Buffalo denied the exemption, asserting that the statute only provides charter schools with the same tax exemptions as public schools, which typically apply to owned, not leased, property. The New York Court of Appeals affirmed, holding that the statute does not create a separate exemption for privately owned property leased to charter schools. The Court emphasized that tax exemptions are narrowly construed and that the statute’s language must be interpreted to provide charter schools with the same, but not greater, exemptions as public schools.
Facts
Charter Development Company (CDC), a for-profit company, acquired property in Buffalo, developed it, and leased it to Buffalo United Charter School. The sublease required the charter school to pay rent and all property taxes. CDC applied for a real property tax exemption based on Education Law § 2853(1)(d), arguing that its lease to the charter school rendered the property tax-exempt.
Procedural History
The City Assessor denied CDC’s application. The Board of Assessment Review upheld the denial. CDC then commenced an Article 78 proceeding and Real Property Tax Law Article 7 proceeding to annul the Assessor’s decision and declare the property tax-exempt. Supreme Court dismissed the petition, and the Appellate Division affirmed. CDC appealed to the New York Court of Appeals.
Issue(s)
Whether Education Law § 2853(1)(d) exempts from real property taxes a property owned by a private entity and leased to a charter school.
Holding
No, because Education Law § 2853(1)(d) provides charter schools with the same tax exemptions as public schools, and this exemption generally applies to property owned, not leased, by the school; the statute does not create a separate exemption for privately owned property leased to charter schools.
Court’s Reasoning
The Court of Appeals emphasized that statutes must be interpreted according to their plain meaning, and all parts of the act must be read together. Tax exemption statutes are narrowly construed, and any ambiguity is resolved against the exemption. The burden is on the taxpayer to prove entitlement to the exemption.
The Court found that Education Law § 2853(1)(d) clearly intends to grant charter schools the same tax exemptions as public schools. The phrase “including property leased by the charter school” merely clarifies the type of property that is exempt, not to create a separate exemption for property owned by a private entity. The Court reasoned that interpreting the statute as CDC suggested would not give effect to the other words in the statute and would grant charter schools a greater exemption than public schools, which was not the legislature’s intent.
The Court distinguished the situation from RPTL 408, which provides an exemption for property owned by a school district and improvements thereon leased by the district, noting this applied to structures erected on property owned by the districts. The Court concluded that CDC failed to demonstrate that the Charter Schools Act plainly created an exemption for private property leased to a charter school. As the court noted, “[t]ax exclusions are never presumed or preferred and before [a] petitioner may have the benefit of them, the burden rests on it to establish that the item comes within the language of the exclusion.” (quoting Matter of Mobil Oil Corp. v Finance Adm’r of City of N.Y., 58 NY2d 95, 99 [1983])