New York County NyArchives Court.....Congregation, Kol Israel Anschi Poland Vs. The Mayor 1889
************************************************
Copyright.  All rights reserved.
http://www.usgwarchives.net/copyright.htm
http://www.usgwarchives.net/ny/nyfiles.htm
************************************************
File contributed for use in USGenWeb Archives by:
Deb Haines http://www.genrecords.net/emailregistry/vols/00003.html#0000719 June 2, 2008, 1:28 pm

Source: Reports Of Cases - New York
Written: 1889

First Department, May Term, 1889.

THE CONGREGATION KOL ISRAEL ANSCHI POLAND, Appellant, v. THE MAYOR, ALDERMEN AND 
COMMONALTY OF THE CITY OF NEW YORK, Respondents.

Exemption from taxation — exclusive possession of real property for the purposes 
of public worship is required in New York city.

A building in the city of New York, the upper and second story of which is used 
exclusively as a Jewish synagogue and place for holding religious services, and 
the first floor of which is used for living apartments by the janitor, and also 
for bathing apartments, accessible to all men and women of the Hebrew or Jewish 
race, whether members of the congregation of the synagogue or not, upon payment 
of a pecuniary compensation for the use thereof, sufficient to cover the expense 
of gas and fuel, and in lieu of a salary to the janitor, is not entitled to 
exemption from taxation, under the provisions of part 1 of chapter 13 of title 1 
of section 4 of subdivision 3 of the Revised Statutes, as the same is modified 
by chapter 282 of the Laws of 1852, embodied in section 827 of chapter 410 of 
the Laws of 1882, providing that exemption from taxation "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 ana exclusively the property of a religious 
society."

Semble, that if the bathing apartments were required in the religious services 
of the synagogue, and the practice of bathing was enjoined by the tenets 
governing the conduct of the worshipers therein, and the apartments were used 
exclusively for the purpose of public worship, the property would be exempt from 
taxation.

Appeal by the plaintiff from a judgment of the New York Special Term, entered in 
the office of the clerk of the county of New York June 30, 1888, dismissing the 
plaintiff's complaint, which was filed to procure the cancellation of taxes for 
the years 1881, 1882, 1884 and 1885, upon No. 80 Forsyth street, in the city of 
New York.

Samuel J. Crooks, for the appellant.

Henry R. Beekman, counsel to the corporation, and J. S. Coleman, for the 
respondents.

Macomber, J.:

It was claimed, upon the trial, that the imposition of taxes for the years above 
mentioned was illegal and void, for the reason that the plaintiff is a religious 
corporation and that the premises assessed were, and had been, used by it 
exclusively for religious services and worship, and were, consequently, exempt 
from taxation under the Revised Statutes and the laws pertaining to the city of 
New York.

The exemption claimed by the plaintiff is founded upon the Revised Statutes, 
part 1, chapter 13, title 1, section 4, subdivision 3, as amended by chapter 397 
of the Laws of 1883. The statute is as follows: "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, used for either of such purposes, and the 
several lots whereon such buildings so used are situated, and the furniture 
belonging to each of them," shall be exempt from taxation.

Chapter 282 of the Laws of 1852, now embodied in section 827 of the 
consolidation act, declares that the exemption from taxation of every building 
used for public worship, etc., as above mentioned, shall not apply to any 
premises in the city of New York, unless such building shall be exclusively used 
for such purposes. The question, therefore, is whether the premises of the 
plaintiff were exclusively used for the purpose of public worship during the 
years above mentioned.

The evidence establishes these facts: The plaintiff, being a domestic religious 
corporation, did, on the 25th day of March, 1881, purchase the property now 
known as No. 80 Forsyth street. Shortly thereafter the house, which then stood 
upon the premises, was altered and rebuilt for the purposes of the plaintiff, 
and from the 1st day of May, 1881, such building contained two floors or 
stories, continuously used by the plaintiff for the following purposes: The 
upper or second floor was used by the plaintiff and its members exclusively as a 
synagogue and place of holding religious services; one portion of the first or 
lower floor was used and occupied by the plaintiff's janitor, wife and family as 
living apartments; the other portion thereof was occupied by bath tubs for women 
and by a pool or plunge for cleansing. Another portion thereof was occupied by 
bath tubs for men, and the remaining portion was occupied by hallways and 
stairs. The bath tubs were accessible to all men and women of the Hebrew or 
Jewish race, whether members of the plaintiff's congregation or not, who might 
desire to use them, and were, during the period aforesaid, frequently used by 
men and women of that race. Cold and warm baths were there provided for them by 
the janitor, who furnished them the necessary facilities, and received from them 
a pecuniary compensation therefor, which he retained for his own use, after 
paying the expenses for gas, fuel and the accessories of the bath, in lieu of 
any salary or compensation provided to him by the plaintiff as such janitor. 
Under these facts, conclusively established by the evidence, it is clear that 
the premises of the plaintiff were not exclusively used for the purposes of 
public worship during any of the time mentioned, and hence they are not exempt 
from taxation. The second story of the building, it is true, is used for 
religious services and public worship, and for no other purpose. But the use of 
the first floor for other purposes than those exclusively religious takes the 
plaintiff out of the operation and protection of the statute. There can be no 
question, under the facts proven, but that the plaintiff was well aware of the 
use to which the lower story was put. It is claimed, however, in behalf of the 
appellant, that the bathing apartments were a part of the religious services, 
enjoined by the obligations of the tenets governing the conduct of the 
plaintiff's worshipers. If it were shown that these baths were administered as a 
part of the preparation for receiving religious instruction, and hence formed a 
part of the religious conduct of the plaintiff, it would not be required to pay 
the taxes thereon; but the proof shows that the baths were given to any persons 
of the Hebrew faith who applied for them, although they were not members of the 
plaintiff's congregation and took no part in any services of the plaintiff. 
These views render it unnecessary to consider the question whether the taxes 
laid in the year 1881 stand upon a different footing from those of the 
succeeding year.

The judgment appealed from should be affirmed, with costs. 

Van Brunt, P. J., and Bartlett, J., concurred. 

Judgment affirmed, with costs.

Additional Comments:
Reports of Cases Heard and Determined in the Supreme Court of the State of New 
York. Marcus T. Hun, Reporter. Volume LIX, 1889, HUN 52. Banks & Company, 
Albany, NY. 1901.

File at: http://files.usgwarchives.net/ny/newyork/court/congrega807gwl.txt
This file has been created by a form at http://www.genrecords.org/nyfiles/

File size: 7.7 Kb