Hyperlawhypertext legal databasebeta Young Men's Christian Ass'n v. Mayor of New York 8 N.Y. St. Rep. 425

← Cases

Young Men's Christian Ass'n v. Mayor of New York

8 N.Y. St. Rep. 425 Court N.Y. Gen. Term Decision date 1887-03-31 English

Decision Majority — Lawrence, J. · Dissent — Bartlett, J

Contents

Majority

p. 425
Young Men’s Christian Association of the City of New York, Res’pt, v. The Mayor, Aldermen and Commonalty of the City of New York, App’lts.
(Supreme Court, General Term, First Department,
Filed March 31, 1887.)

Headnote

Exemption—Taxes and assessments—When property tjsbd for religious AND SCHOOL PURPOSES—LAWS 1883, CHAP. 397—REVISED STATUTES, Part 1, chap. 13, title 1, § 4.
On or about July 10, 1884, the respondent, a corporation for the improvement of the spiritual, mental and social condition of the young men of the city of New York, commenced the erection of a certain building
p. 426
on lots then and previously owned by said corporation, for the purpose and with the intent of putting the same to the uses and objects for which it was used after its completion In January, 1885, the property was assessed for taxation and in August, 1885.. a tax of ¡¡¡51,200 thereon, for said year, was confirmed. The building was completed in October of that year, and thereupon the plaintiffs commenced to use the same as a place for holding public worship and religious and social meetings and for imparting religious and secular instruction to young men. In said building were maintained by plaintiffs a library and lecture room, reading room, bath room and gymnasium, and instruction was given in penmanship, arithmetic etc , and lectures were given on scientific, medical and practical subjects and concerts and other entertainments were held therein. The aforesaid advantages and privileges were open to all young men of decent character upon becoming members of said association and upon the payment of a small membership fee. Attendance at the religious meetings, and on occasions of public worship was free to all. The plaintiff derived no income, rent or profit from said lots or building other than the membership fees aforesaid and all of these were applied to the current expenses of said institute. Held, that the said property was used both for religious and school purposes in such a sense as to entitle it to exemption from taxation under Laws 1883, chapter 897, which amends the Revised Statutes, part 1, chapter 13, title 1, § 4. That as the property had been acquired and the erection of the building begun before the assessment and before the confirmation of the tax, it was exempt from the tax levied for 1885. Bartlett, J. dissenting.
The plaintiff is a corporation existing under an act to incorporate the Young Men’s Christian Association of the city of New York, passed April'3, 1866, and an act amending the same, passed May 6, 1872. The objects of the corporation are declared by the acts aforesaid to be, the improvement of the spiritual, mental and social condition of the young men of the city of New York, by the support and maintenance of lectures, sermons, libraries, reading rooms, social meetings and such other meetings and services as may conduce to the accomplishment of this object. Prior to 1885, the plaintiff was and still is the exclusive owner in fee of two lots in the city of New York, known by the street numbers 222 and 224 Bowery.
On or about the 10th of July, 1884, the respondent commenced the erection of the building now covering both lots and known as the “Young Men’s Institute,” for the purpose and with the intent of putting the same to the uses and objects for which the same is now used. On the second Monday of January, 1885, the property was assessed for taxation for said year in the sum of $50,000, and on or about August 17, 1885, a tax of $1,200 thereon for said year was confirmed by the board of aldermen, and constitutes a lien valid on its face upon, the property aforesaid. The building in question was completed in October, 1885, after the confirmation of the tax, and thereupon the plaintiffs commenced to use the same as a place for holding_ public worship and religious and social meetings, and for imparting religious and secular instruction to young men. In said building are maintained by the respondent, a library
p. 427
and lecture-room or large hall, reading-room, bath-room and gymnasium, and instruction is given in penmanship, arithmetic, bookkeeping, mechanical, architectural and free hand drawing, and lectures are given on scientific, medical and practical subjects, and concerts and other entertainments are held therein.
The court below found that the aforesaid advantages and privileges are open to all young men of decent character upon becoming members of said association, and upon the payment of a membership fee, ranging from fifty cents per year to four dollars per year, and that attendance at the religious meetings and occasions of public worship are free to all. Also that from the time of the commencement of the erection of said building the respondent has derived no income, rent or profit from the said lots or building, or any. part thereof, other than the membership fees aforesaid, and that since the completion of said building the said premises have been exclusively used for the purposes above mentioned, and all the said membership fees have been applied to the current expenses of the institute. The court also found, among other things, as conclusions of law, that the respondent constitutes a religious society, and that the tax is invalid and void on the proof of the facts, and that the same constitutes a cloud upon the title of said property, and judgment was directed that said taxis illegal and void, and that the same be canceled and the defendants restrained from enforcing the same.
It is upon an appeal from this judgment that the case comes before us.
E. Henry Lacombe, counsel to the corporation, and George S. Coleman, for app’lt; Hubbard Smith and Cephas Brainerd, for resp’ts.

It is provided by the Revised Statutes as amended by chapter 397 of the Laws of 1883, subdivision 3, that the following, among other property, shall be exempt from taxation.

“ Every building erected for the use of a college, incorporated academy or other seminary of learning, and in actual use for either of such purposes, every building for public worship, every school-house, court-house and jail use for either of such purposes, and the several lots wherein such buildings so used are situated and the furniture belonging to each of them.”

Subdivision 4. “Every poor-house, alms-house, house of industry, etc.”

Subdivision 5. “The real and personal property of every public library.” Chapter 282 of the Laws of 1852, provides: Section 1. “ The exemption from taxation of every build

p. 428
ing for public worship, and every school-house or other-seminary of learning under the provisions of subdivision 3 .of section 4, title 1, chapter 13, part first, of the Revised Statutes, or amendments thereof, shall not apply to any such building or premises in the city of New York, unless, the same shall be exclusively used for such purposes and exclusively the property of a religious society, or of the New York Public School Society.”

The question to be determined in this case is, whether the plaintiff is to be deemed a religious society, and an examination of the cases heretofore decided under the statutes, just ref erred to would seem to show that that question must be answered in the affirmative. In the case of the Hebrew Free School Association v. The Mayor of New York ( 4 Hun, 446 ), it appears that the plaintiff was incorporated under the act for the incorporation of benevolent, charitable, scientific and missionary societies, passed April 12, 1848, and the acts amendatory thereto. That the purpose of said corporation was to provide for the gratuitous instruction of Jewish youth in the Hebrew religion, and other branches of knowledge, and to promote the study of Hebrew literature. In that case, Presiding Justice Davis, in delivering the opinion of the court, said: “But we think: the words ‘a religious society,’ used in the act of 1852, were not intended to be used in the limited signification of church incorporations, or bodies organized for the mere purpose of establishing church societies, as provided by the act of 1813 and its amendments. It is true that the act of 1848 was not intended for the organization of religious societies in the sense of incorporated churches, but in the more general sense we see no reason why a body like the plaintiff may not be deemed a religious society, and as such the exclusive owner of property devoted to a school for religious and other instruction. See also Association for Colored Orphans v. The Mayor, etc. ( 38 Hun, 594 ; affirmed in court of appeals, see 6 N. Y. State Rep., 477.)

In the latter case it was held that it was not intended by chapter 282 of the Laws of 1852, or section 827 of chapter 410 of the Laws of 1882, providing that the exemption from taxation of buildings used for the purposes therein specified, should not apply to any building or premises in the city of New York, unless the same shall be exclusively used for such purposes, and exclusively the property of a religious society, to limit the exemption to such property as is owned by a religious society, but it was intended thereby to give the exemption to such building or premises as should be exclusively devoted to one or the other of the purposes, therein specified, whether the property was owned by a religious corporation or not. It is said, however, in this

Dissent

p. 429
case that the property in question was not used exclusively for religious purposes—that the public worship and religious exercises of the institute only consist of a bible-class, bible talk and gospel meetings held every Sunday, while the institute is mainly devoted to physical, intellectual and social improvement for a consideration.

We think, however, that the uses to which the property is put may fairly be said, under the decisions above quoted, to be used both for religious and school purposes, in such a sense as to entitle them to exemption from taxation. It is further said that the property was notin actual use for the purposes for which it had been acquired until after the tax for 1885 had been confirmed. This is true, but the property had been acquired, and the erection of the building begun before the assessment and before the confirmation of the tax This brings the case within the decision of the general term of this department in St. James Church v. Mayor etc , of New York, 41 Hun, 309 ; 2 N. Y. Stato Rep., 383

We are, therefore, of the opinion that that the evidence supports the findings of fact and. conclusions of law of the special term, and that the judgment should be affirmed, with costs.

Van Brunt, P J , concurs.

(dissenting) I am unable to concur with the majority of the court in the conclusion that the respondent’s premises are used both for religious and school purposes in such a sense as to entitle them to exemption from taxation

The statute requires an exclusive use of the building in such a case as this, for religious purposes, or as a schoolhouse or other seminary of learning. Laws 1852, chapter 282. I do not think the Bowery branch of the Young Men’s Ohristain Association is either a school-house or seminary of learning in the statutory sense; nor does it seems to me that an exclusive use for religious purpose is made out by showing that there are religious exercises there every Sunday and prayer meetings on Thursday, when it also appears that the building is chiefly devoted to the physical, intellectual and social improvement, mainly .by secular means, of the young men who become members of the Association.

Statutes and regulations cited