New York Law Review

Tag: Mixed-Use Property

  • Bartoo v. Buell, 87 N.Y.2d 362 (1996): Homeowner Exemption and Mixed-Use Properties Under Labor Law

    Bartoo v. Buell, 87 N.Y.2d 362 (1996)

    When a homeowner contracts for work that directly relates to the residential use of their one- or two-family dwelling, they are shielded by the homeowner exemption from Labor Law §§ 240 and 241, even if the work also serves a commercial purpose.

    Summary

    This case clarifies the scope of the homeowner exemption under New York Labor Law §§ 240 and 241 when a property is used for both residential and commercial purposes. The Court of Appeals held that the homeowner exemption applies if the work contracted for directly relates to the residential use of the home, even if it also serves a commercial purpose. The Court emphasized a ‘site and purpose’ test. In Bartoo, the repair of a barn roof used for both personal storage and commercial golf cart storage fell under the exemption. In Anderson, adding a bedroom to a home with a daycare also qualified, as the bedroom served a residential purpose.

    Facts

    In Bartoo v. Buell, Robert Buell hired contractors to repair the roof of his barn. The barn was used to store his personal belongings, a neighbor’s belongings (without charge), and golf carts for nine individuals who paid a $25 annual storage fee. During the repairs, three workers were injured when a scaffold collapsed.

    In Anderson v. Flanagan, Mary Flanagan, who ran a daycare center in her home, contracted to add a bedroom to the first floor. A worker was injured when he fell from the roof while attempting to descend.

    Procedural History

    Bartoo: The Supreme Court initially granted summary judgment to the injured workers, finding the homeowner exemption inapplicable due to the barn’s commercial use. The Appellate Division reversed, granting summary judgment to Buell and dismissing the Labor Law claims. The workers appealed to the Court of Appeals.

    Anderson: The Supreme Court granted summary judgment to Flanagan, holding that the homeowner exemption applied. The Appellate Division affirmed. The worker appealed to the Court of Appeals after leave to appeal was granted.

    Issue(s)

    1. Whether the homeowner exemption of Labor Law § 240(1) and § 241(6) applies to a structure or dwelling jointly used for residential and commercial purposes.

    Holding

    1. Yes, because when an owner of a one- or two-family dwelling contracts for work that directly relates to the residential use of the home, even if the work also serves a commercial purpose, that owner is shielded by the homeowner exemption from the absolute liability of Labor Law §§ 240 and 241.

    Court’s Reasoning

    The Court emphasized the legislative intent behind the homeowner exemption, which was to protect homeowners from the strict liability imposed by Labor Law §§ 240 and 241, recognizing that typical homeowners are not as capable as businesses to ensure workplace safety and obtain appropriate insurance.

    The Court reaffirmed the ‘site and purpose’ test established in prior cases like Cannon v. Putnam, where the focus is on whether the work was undertaken in connection with the residential use of the property. The Court distinguished the case from Van Amerogen v. Donnini, where the one-family dwelling was used *exclusively* for commercial purposes, making it essentially a commercial enterprise.

    The Court reasoned that in Bartoo, the barn repair was primarily for residential purposes (protecting personal belongings), with the commercial benefit being ancillary. The barn was considered an extension of the dwelling. In Anderson, adding a bedroom directly related to the residential use of the home, even though the home also housed a daycare center.

    The Court quoted Cannon v. Putnam stating that a homeowner who hires someone to paint his own living-room ceiling should be afforded the benefit of the statutory exemption from liability even if he also maintains a business on the property. In terms of the legislative purpose, such a homeowner is no more or less likely to ‘know about, or provide for the responsibilities of absolute liability’ for home-improvement-related injuries than is a similarly situated homeowner who happens to conduct a business on a separate parcel of land. (76 NY2d, at 650)

  • New York Botanical Garden v. Assessors of Town of Washington, 55 N.Y.2d 328 (1982): Tax Exemption for Mixed-Use Properties

    New York Botanical Garden v. Assessors of Town of Washington, 55 N.Y.2d 328 (1982)

    When a property serves multiple purposes, some of which qualify for an absolute tax exemption and others a qualified exemption, and the municipality seeks to withdraw a previously granted tax exemption, the municipality bears the burden of proving that the property is primarily used for the qualifiedly exempt purpose.

    Summary

    The New York Botanical Garden sought a real property tax exemption for its Cary Arboretum in the Town of Washington. The town had previously granted the exemption but later revoked it, arguing the arboretum’s primary purpose was scientific research, which was taxable under a local law. The Court of Appeals held that the town failed to prove the arboretum was primarily used for scientific purposes. Because the arboretum served multiple exempt purposes, including education, conservation, and recreation, the town did not meet its burden, and the property remained tax-exempt. The court emphasized that the municipality bears the burden of proof when seeking to withdraw a previously granted tax exemption.

    Facts

    The New York Botanical Garden (NYBG) operates the Bronx Botanical Garden and the Cary Arboretum. The Cary Arboretum, consisting of 1,900 acres, was deeded to NYBG by the Mary Flagler Cary Charitable Trust. The deed mandated the property be used as an arboretum, including growing woody plants, ecological research, and public instruction. Approximately 800-900 acres were used for planting and monitoring trees and shrubs, another 900 acres maintained in a natural state for ecological studies with nature trails, and the remainder used for displaying the arboretum’s collection. The property hosted a library, plant science museum, and educational programs.

    Procedural History

    From 1973 to 1977, the Cary Arboretum was tax-exempt. In 1977, the Town of Washington enacted Local Law No. 3, taxing property used for scientific purposes. The town then restored the arboretum property to the tax roll, determining its primary purpose was scientific. NYBG commenced an Article 78 proceeding to have the property declared tax-exempt. Special Term dismissed the petition, but the Appellate Division reversed, holding the town failed to prove the arboretum was primarily used for scientific purposes. The town appealed to the New York Court of Appeals.

    Issue(s)

    Whether the Town of Washington met its burden of proving that the New York Botanical Garden was organized primarily for scientific purposes and that the Cary Arboretum was primarily used for such purposes, thereby justifying the withdrawal of a previously granted tax exemption.

    Holding

    No, because the Town of Washington failed to prove that the New York Botanical Garden was organized and the Cary Arboretum was used primarily for scientific purposes. Because the property served multiple exempt purposes, the withdrawal of the tax exemption was not justified.

    Court’s Reasoning

    The court emphasized that generally, the burden of proof lies with the taxpayer seeking a tax exemption. However, when a municipality seeks to withdraw a previously granted tax exemption under Real Property Tax Law § 420 (subd 1, par [b]), the municipality bears the burden of proving that the property is subject to taxation. The court noted that the NYBG’s charter described several purposes, including maintaining a botanical garden, advancing botanical science, exhibiting horticulture, and providing public instruction and recreation. The court found the town failed to demonstrate that a scientific purpose predominated, despite NYBG’s own declarations of its scientific activities.

    The court distinguished the case from situations where an organization’s primary purpose could be definitively classified as scientific. Citing Mohonk Trust v. Board of Assessors of Town of Gardiner, the court noted that environmental and conservation purposes are encompassed within broader categories that afford absolute exemption. The court found NYBG’s purposes strikingly similar to those of the Mohonk Trust and the North Manursing Wildlife Sanctuary, both of which had been granted tax exemptions. The court found the arboretum’s emphasis on preservation and environmental concerns provided a sufficient basis for finding its primary purpose to be absolutely exempt.

    The court also addressed the town’s argument regarding restrictions on public access, stating that to qualify for tax exemption, the arboretum must be “necessary to the public good” and “open to and enjoyed by the public” (Mohonk Trust v Board of Assessors of Town of Gardiner, 47 NY2d 476, 484). However, the court found that the restricted access was consistent with the purposes for which the land was being used and did not deprive it of a public purpose. The court held that the Cary Arboretum’s use accomplished several exempt purposes, including educational, charitable, and moral improvement purposes, and should fall within the broader categories of absolutely exempt uses.