Clarifying Primary-Use Standard under RPTL 420-a: Exempting Housing for Religious Personnel

Introduction

Matter of Harrison Orthodox Minyan, Inc. v. Town/Village of Harrison (2025 NYSlipOp 01634) is a decision of the Appellate Division, Second Department, New York, handed down on March 19, 2025. The petitioner is Harrison Orthodox Minyan, Inc., a not-for-profit religious corporation operating a modern Orthodox synagogue in Harrison, New York. In two related proceedings under Real Property Tax Law (RPTL) article 7, the petitioner challenged the assessor’s denial of a property tax exemption for a residential parcel used to house its full-time Torah reader, Efraim Marcus, and his family. The synagogue had acquired the property—located within walking distance of the house of worship—to accommodate Marcus’s Sabbath and holiday travel restrictions. The key issue before the court was whether a residence provided to essential religious personnel may be considered “primarily used” for exempt religious purposes under RPTL 420-a.

Summary of the Judgment

The Appellate Division reversed the Supreme Court’s order denying summary judgment to the petitioner for the 2015 tax year and granting dismissal of both the 2015 and 2019 petitions. It held that:

The petitioner carried its burden of showing that the property was used primarily in furtherance of its exempt religious purposes during the 2015 tax year.
Housing a professionally trained Torah reader within walking distance of the synagogue was “reasonably incidental” to the synagogue’s core function of conducting daily prayers, weekly Sabbaths, and holiday services.
Lower courts must apply the well-established two-part test under RPTL 420-a: (1) the owner’s organizational purpose must be primarily religious, educational, or charitable; and (2) the particular property must be primarily used to further those exempt purposes.
The Supreme Court should have granted the petitioner’s summary judgment motion for 2015 and denied the respondents’ cross-motions. The 2019 proceeding was converted into a hybrid CPLR article 78 proceeding rather than dismissed on procedural grounds.

Analysis

Precedents Cited

The court surveyed a long line of New York and U.S. Supreme Court decisions establishing that “exclusively” under RPTL 420-a means “primarily” or “principally,” and that off-site residences for essential personnel may qualify for exemption if they are reasonably incidental to the owner’s exempt mission. Key authorities include:

Walz v. Tax Commission of City of N.Y. (397 US 664): U.S. Supreme Court upholding New York’s constitutional exemption for religious institutions.
People ex rel. Watchtower Bible & Tract Soc’y v. Haring (8 NY2d 350): Early New York case applying the “reasonably incidental” test to adjacent apartments for hospital interns.
Matter of St. Luke’s Hosp. v. Boyland (12 NY2d 135): Court of Appeals held that hospital apartments across the street were exempt because they facilitated recruitment and retention of medical staff.
Matter of Yeshivath Shearith Hapletah v. Assessor of Town of Fallsburg (79 NY2d 244): Summer religious instruction campus, including faculty housing and caretaker residence, was exempt under RPTL 420-a.
Matter of Merry-Go-Round Playhouse, Inc. v. Assessor of City of Auburn (24 NY3d 362): Exemption extended to theater employee housing acquired to attract and retain summer stock actors and staff.
Sephardic Congregation of S. Monsey v. Town of Ramapo (47 AD3d 915): Synagogue residence of the rabbi on-site was held reasonably incidental to worship services.

Legal Reasoning

The Appellate Division reaffirmed the two-part legal test for RPTL 420-a exemptions:

The property owner must be organized and conducted primarily for an exempt purpose (e.g., religious worship).
The particular parcel must be primarily used for carrying out that exempt purpose. Uses that are merely “auxiliary or incidental” to the core mission do not defeat exemption.

Applying this framework, the court found that:

Essential personnel function: Efraim Marcus served as the synagogue’s full-time Torah reader, akin to an assistant rabbi, responsible for multiple services per week, holiday worship, tutoring and ritual preparation.
Walking-distance requirement: Orthodox Jewish law forbids driving on the Sabbath and holidays, making proximate housing indispensable to Marcus’s role.
Reasonable incidentality: The residence’s main use was to enable Marcus to perform his religious duties. Additional uses—tutoring congregants and hosting small religious events—further underscored its exempt character.

The court rejected the Supreme Court’s notion that the exemption could be withheld because a private donor funded the property purchase or because alternative readers might have been found. Instead, New York’s public policy favors liberally construing exemptions to foster religious institutions as a public benefit.

Impact

This decision provides clear guidance to taxpayers, assessors, and lower courts:

Residential parcels housing clergy and essential religious personnel may qualify for full tax exemption if their services are “reasonably incidental” to the institution’s exempt mission.
Distance from the main building is irrelevant when religious doctrines necessitate proximate lodging (e.g., Sabbath restrictions).
Donor-funded acquisitions do not undermine exemption eligibility.
Taxpayers should be able to resolve exemption disputes by summary judgment when no triable facts exist.

Future cases will rely on this decision when determining whether specialized residences—off-site but functionally integral—meet the “primary use” requirement of RPTL 420-a.

Complex Concepts Simplified

“Exclusively” vs. “Primarily”: Although RPTL 420-a uses the term “exclusively,” New York courts interpret it to mean “primarily” or “principally.” Minor or incidental non-exempt uses will not defeat an otherwise valid exemption.
“Reasonably incidental”: A use that supports or facilitates the exempt purpose—such as housing key staff—is considered “reasonably incidental,” even if the property is not adjacent to the main facility.
Hybrid CPLR article 78 proceeding: When a taxpayer mistakenly initiates a challenge under RPTL article 7 but fails to satisfy its procedural prerequisites, a court may convert the case into a hybrid article 78 proceeding and plenary action rather than dismiss it outright.

Conclusion

Matter of Harrison Orthodox Minyan, Inc. v. Town/Village of Harrison clarifies that under RPTL 420-a, residential property used to house essential religious personnel within walking distance of a house of worship qualifies for full tax exemption if the use is primarily in furtherance of the institution’s exempt mission. The decision reinforces New York’s policy of liberally construing tax exemptions for religious entities, confirms the two-part “owner and use” test, and offers practical guidance on summary judgment practice in exemption disputes. By protecting the housing of a Torah reader—whose services are indispensable and prohibited from traveling by vehicle on the Sabbath—the court underscores the accommodation of religious practice as a public benefit worthy of tax relief.