Application of Sailors’ Snug Harbor, 26 N.Y.2d 444 (1970)

When assessing real property that is partially exempt from taxation, the tax assessors are not required to physically delineate the exempt and non-exempt portions of the property; rather, they may state the total value, the amount of the exemption, and the value subject to tax in separate columns on the assessment roll.

Summary

Sailors’ Snug Harbor, a charitable corporation, challenged property tax assessments on its Staten Island property. The City Tax Commission had assessed part of the property as taxable, claiming it wasn’t used for charitable purposes, while Snug Harbor argued the entire property was exempt and that the city improperly intermingled exempt and non-exempt property on the rolls without identifying each portion. The Court of Appeals held that the city’s method of assessment, listing the total value, the exemption amount, and the taxable value in separate columns, complied with Real Property Tax Law § 502(5). The court also ruled that summary judgment is available in tax review proceedings under Article 7 of the Real Property Tax Law when no triable issues of fact exist.

Facts

Sailors’ Snug Harbor, a charitable organization, owned approximately 80 acres of real property on Staten Island. Prior to 1960, the entire property had been listed as exempt from taxation. The City Tax Commission, believing a portion of the property was not actually used for charitable purposes and might be leased for commercial use, began assessing only part of the property as exempt, while deeming the remainder taxable. The land was acquired between 1831 and 1894.

Procedural History

Sailors’ Snug Harbor initiated tax review proceedings challenging the assessments for the years 1960-1968. The Supreme Court initially denied Snug Harbor’s motion for summary judgment. The Appellate Division reversed, annulling the assessments, finding the city improperly intermingled exempt and non-exempt property on the rolls. The City of New York appealed to the New York Court of Appeals.

Issue(s)

1. Whether Real Property Tax Law § 502(5) requires tax assessors to physically delineate the exempt and non-exempt portions of a partially exempt property on the assessment roll.
2. Whether summary judgment is an available procedural mechanism in a proceeding for review under Article 7 of the Real Property Tax Law.

Holding

1. No, because Real Property Tax Law § 502(5) only requires that the amount of the exemption be stated in a separate column, not a physical description of the exempt portion.
2. Yes, because the Real Property Tax Law, when read together with the Civil Practice Law and Rules (CPLR), allows for summary determination when a petitioner demonstrates that no triable issues of fact exist.

Court’s Reasoning

The court reasoned that § 502(5) of the Real Property Tax Law mandates listing partially exempt property with taxable property, showing the exemption amount in a separate column. The court emphasized the statute’s language requiring only the “amount” of the exemption to be stated, implying a monetary value rather than a physical description. The court found that describing the whole parcel as “Block 76 Lot 1” complied with the requirement of identifying each separately assessed parcel under subdivision 2. The court also considered the practical difficulties in making accurate physical allocations of exempt and non-exempt space, especially in cases where portions of land have been unused for extended periods. The court noted that the owner is in the best position to know the actual apportionment. Regarding the availability of summary judgment, the court held that the procedures under Real Property Tax Law § 720 are similar to those in an action under CPLR Article 4, which permits summary determination when no triable issues exist. The court stated that “It would be a procedural anachronism if undisputed facts which could lead to a proper judgment nevertheless had to be sent for trial under an article 7 tax proceeding.” The dissenting judges agreed with the Appellate Division ruling.