New York Court of Appeals, 1969

Walz v. Tax Commission

New York Court of Appeals · Decided February 20, 1969

24 N.Y.2d 30; 246 N.E.2d 517; 298 N.Y.S.2d 711; 1969 N.Y. LEXIS 1513

Cases that cite this one

3 later published cases cite this decision.

Matter of Harrison Orthodox Minyan, Inc. v. Town/Village of Harrison (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2025)
Legion of Christ, Inc. v. Town of Mount Pleasant (New York Supreme Court 2009)
Pacer, Inc. v. Planning Board (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 1995)

This list shows which later cases cite this one. It does not say how they treated it, and no review of that has been done. Not a substitute for Shepard’s or KeyCite — verify before relying.

Opinion of the Court

Per Curiam.

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*31poses 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.

Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.