Background
Syracuse University challenged the City of Syracuse’s tax assessments on a parcel at 200–210 Waverly Avenue for tax years 2022 and 2023, commencing proceedings under RPTL Article 7. The University sought a full exemption under RPTL 420-a(1)(a), which exempts property owned by an educational institution and used exclusively for its educational purpose.
Although the City’s cross-motion papers contained references to RPTL 525(2)(a) — a provision addressing a property owner’s failure to comply with an assessor’s information requests — City counsel expressly disavowed reliance on that statute at oral argument, calling the references an “oversight.” Supreme Court nonetheless recharacterized the City’s cross-motion as seeking dismissal under RPTL 525(2)(a), granted it on that basis as a “threshold jurisdictional” matter, and dismissed the petitions without reaching the merits.
The Court’s Holding
The Fourth Department reversed unanimously on two independent grounds and granted the University’s summary judgment motion. First, Supreme Court erred by dismissing on a ground the City had expressly waived. Second — and of broad significance — the court rejected the premise that RPTL 525(2)(a) is jurisdictional, confirming that “although ‘failure to respond to material questions at a hearing and failure to produce documents requested may affect the right to reduction of the assessment, an owner does not, by such failures, forfeit his right to maintain the [RPTL article 7] proceeding.’”
Turning to the merits, the court found that Syracuse University established entitlement to a full RPTL 420-a exemption, demonstrating the entirety of the parcel was used exclusively for its educational mission. The City offered no countervailing evidence. The matter was remitted for calculation of any refund.
Key Takeaways
- RPTL 525(2)(a) is not jurisdictional; a court cannot invoke it sua sponte to dismiss an RPTL Article 7 petition, particularly after the municipality has waived that argument.
- A party’s express waiver of a legal theory at oral argument is binding — courts may not resurrect an abandoned ground.
- Educational institutions can secure RPTL 420-a summary judgment by demonstrating through documentary evidence that the entire parcel is devoted to the institution’s exempt educational purpose.
Why It Matters
For in-house counsel at universities, hospitals, and other large not-for-profit institutions facing assessment battles, this decision clarifies that a city or town cannot use RPTL 525(2)(a) as a jurisdictional trump card to eliminate an Article 7 petition. Both sides should treat any reference to § 525 in motion papers with care, because citations that appear as “oversights” can be fatally waived.
On the substantive side, the ruling confirms that a well-constructed summary-judgment motion anchored in evidence of actual exclusive use can resolve multi-year assessment disputes efficiently.