Congregation Yeshiva Yoreh Deah Inc. v. Ozomek (Assessor of the Town of Liberty), et al.
Attorneys and Parties
Brief Summary
Eligibility for a religious/charitable real property tax exemption under RPTL 420-a and whether an alleged zoning code violation defeats the exemption.
Denied the not-for-profit owner's motion for summary judgment, granted the Town respondents' cross-motion based on an asserted zoning violation, and deemed the school district’s discovery motion moot.
The grant of respondents' cross-motion for summary judgment.
Respondents failed to make a prima facie showing of a zoning violation with admissible evidence; they relied only on an attorney affirmation and a use schedule without a zoning map or affidavit establishing each parcel's zoning classification. Petitioner's own motion remained properly denied because it failed to make a prima facie showing for the RPTL 420-a exemption, offering only conclusory assertions and a 501(c)(3) letter without supporting financials. Under RPTL 420-a [exempts real property owned by a not-for-profit corporation organized for religious or educational purposes and used exclusively for such purposes], a municipality may defeat the exemption with proof of a zoning code violation, but it bears the burden of proof.
Background
Petitioner, a not-for-profit organized under N-PCL 402, purchased two parcels (24 and 65 acres) in the Town of Liberty and from 2019 onward applied annually for a real property tax exemption under RPTL 420-a. The Assessor and Board of Assessment Review denied the applications. Petitioner commenced four RPTL article 7 [procedure to review tax assessments] proceedings for the 2019–2022 tax years, claiming the properties were used exclusively for religious/charitable purposes (education in kashrut and agricultural principles for at-risk Jewish youth). Petitioner moved for summary judgment. The Town respondents cross-moved, asserting the properties' use violated the Town’s zoning code, which would bar a 420-a exemption. The Liberty Central School District appeared in the 2021 and 2022 matters and cross-moved for discovery.
Lower Court Decision
Supreme Court (Schick, J.) denied petitioner’s summary judgment motion, granted the Town respondents’ cross-motion on the theory that zoning violations bar a 420-a exemption, and denied the school district’s discovery cross-motion as moot.
Appellate Division Reversal
Modified: reversed the grant of the Town respondents’ cross-motion and denied that cross-motion; otherwise affirmed. The court held petitioner failed to make a prima facie showing for 420-a because it offered only conclusory assertions (including no pecuniary profit) without financial records, and a 501(c)(3) letter does not create a presumption. On the Town’s cross-motion, the municipality—bearing the burden to prove a zoning violation—submitted only an attorney affirmation with a schedule of district uses, without a zoning map or affidavit establishing each parcel’s zoning classification; this was insufficient. The court also held the Town could raise the unpleaded zoning defense on summary judgment absent surprise or prejudice, and the lack of prior code enforcement citations did not bar reliance on the defense.
Legal Significance
Reaffirms dual burdens in RPTL 420-a disputes: the not-for-profit must make a prima facie showing of exclusive exempt use with competent evidence (including financials); the municipality bears the burden to defeat the exemption with admissible proof of a zoning violation. Attorney affirmations unsupported by evidentiary materials (e.g., zoning maps, affidavits with personal knowledge) are inadequate. Confirms that a zoning violation, if proven, is a complete defense to a 420-a exemption and may be raised on summary judgment even if not pleaded, absent prejudice.
For RPTL 420-a exemptions, petitioners must substantiate exempt use with concrete evidence beyond conclusory statements and a 501(c)(3) letter, while municipalities seeking to defeat an exemption on zoning grounds must submit admissible proof of the property’s zoning classification and the specific violation; otherwise, summary judgment will be denied.