In re Beth Israel Hospital Housing Co.
Opinion of the Court
This is an appeal from a decision of the Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board holding appellant employer not exempt from contributions under the provisions of subdivision 4 of section 560 of the Unemployment Insurance Law (Labor Law, art. 18).
Appellant is a membership corporation organized under the Private Housing Finance Law for the purpose of building and operating auxiliary housing facilities for the personnel and their
The board reasoned that the employer is not a hospital, but a separate corporation organized to provide housing facilities for the hospital staff which is, in fact, its primary purpose, and consequently,'it is not entitled to exemption from liability under the Unemployment Insurance Law. With this reasoning we do not agree. As this court stated in Matter of Mendelsohn (262 App. Div. 605, 609, affd. 295 N. Y. 691), the requirements of subdivision 4 are twofold: “ (1) the institution must be organized and operated exclusively for charitable purposes, (2) no part of the net earnings ’ ’ can inure ££ to the benefit of any private shareholder or individual ”. The second requirement has been met.
The Court of Appeals has held that supplying living accommodations for hospital personnel and their immediate families is a hospital purpose (Matter of St. Luke’s Hosp. v. Boyland, 12 N Y 2d 135, 141), and it constitutes a use incidental to the principal use of the main hospital building (Matter of De Mott v. Notey, 3 N Y 2d 116,119). Competent personnel and employees are imperative to the efficient operation of a hospital. It is common knowledge that presently there is a scarcity of both doctors and nurses. It is understandable, therefore, that the providing of convenient, adequate, lower cost housing accommodations for its personnel and staff could be a compelling inducement for students, interns, residents and nurses to affiliate with appellant or a similar institution. To avail itself of funds obtainable under the Private Housing Finance Law, the creation by Beth Israel Hospital of appellant membership housing corporation was mandatory.
While we are not unmindful of the general rule of strict construction applied to tax exemption statutes, we, nevertheless, should apply that rule in light of the purposes to be furthered by the exemption. (St. Barbara’s R. C. Church v. City of New York, 243 App. Div. 371.) To do otherwise would actually thwart
The decision should be reversed, with costs, and matter remitted to the board for further proceedings.
Herlihy, P. J., Reynolds, Greenblott and Cooke, JJ., concur.
Decision reversed, with costs, and matter remitted to the board for further proceedings.
Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.