Hyperlawhypertext legal databasebeta Walz v. Tax Commission 24 N.Y.2d 30

← Cases

Walz v. Tax Commission

24 N.Y.2d 30 Court N.Y. Decision date 1969-02-20 English

Contents

Majority

p. 30
Frederick Walz, Appellant, v. Tax Commission of the City of New York, Respondent.
Submitted January 10, 1969;
decided February 20, 1969.
Frederick Walz, appellant pro se.
The court below erred in dismissing the complaint instead of striking out the answer. (Everson v. Board of Educ., 330 U. S. 1 ; United States v. Seeger, 380 U. S. 163 .)
J. Lee Rankin, Corporation Counsel (Edith I. Spivack, Edward J. McLaughlin and Daniel L. Cammarano of counsel),
for respondent. Tax exemptions for property of religious organizations do not violate the United States Constitution. (General Finance Corp. v. Archetto, 93 R. I. 392 , 369 U. S. 423 ; Heisey v. County of Alameda, 46 Cal. 2d 644 , 352 U. S. 921 ; Ohio ex rel. Eaton v. Price, 360 U. S. 246 ; Matter of Steinbeck v. Gerosa, 4 N Y 2d 302 ; Murray v. Comptroller of Treasury, 241 Md. 383 , 385 U. S. 816 ; Garrett Biblical Inst. v. Elmhurst State Bank, 331 Ill. 308 ; Trustees of Griswold Coll. v. State of Iowa, 46 Iowa 275 .)

Firmly embedded in the law of this State, both by Constitution (art. XVI, § 1) and by statute (Real Property Tax Law, § 420), is the doctrine that real property owned by a religious corporation and used exclusively for religious pur

p. 31
poses is exempt from taxation (see, e.g., Pople ex rel. Watchtower Bible & Tract Soc. v. Haring, 8 N Y 2d 350 , 357-358; People ex rel. Church of St. Mary v. Feitner, 168 N. Y. 494 , 497) and research discloses — and the 2½-page brief of the plaintiff-appellant herein cites no authority to the contrary— that courts throughout the country have long and consistently held that the exemption of such real property from taxation does not violate the Constitution of the United States. (See, e.g., Trustees of Griswold Coll. v. State of Iowa, 46 Iowa 275 , 282 [1877]; Methodist Episcopal Church, South v. Hinton, 92 Tenn. 188 [1893]; Garrett Biblical Inst. v. Elmhurst State Bank, 331 Ill. 308 [1928]; Lundberg v. County of Alameda, 46 Cal. 2d 644 , app. dsmd. 352 U. S. 921 [1956]; General Finance Corp. v. Archetto, 93 R. I. 392 , app. dsmd. 369 U. S. 423 [1962]; Murray v. Comptroller of Treasury, 241 Md. 383 , cert. den. 385 U. S. 816 [1966]; see, also, Abington School Dist. v. Schempp, 374 U. S. 203 , 301 [per Brennan, J., concurring [1963]. But see, contra, Engel v. Vitale, 370 U. S. 421 , 437, per Douglas, J., concurring [1962].) We see no reason for departing from this conclusion in this case.

The question of the plaintiff’s standing to maintain this action has not been raised.

The order appealed from should be affirmed, with costs.

Chief Judge Fuld and Judges Soileppi, Bergan, Keating, Brbitel and Jasen concur; Judge Burke concurs in result.

Order affirmed.

Cases cited