In a significant ruling that reinforces the importance of tax exemptions for religious institutions, a New York State appellate court recently granted a property tax exemption for a residence provided to a synagogue’s baal koreh and his family. The case, Harrison Orthodox Minyan, Inc. v. Town/Village of Harrison, decided by New York’s Second Judicial Department on March 19, 2025, recognized the vital role that support staff play in fulfilling a congregation’s religious mission and that such properties should be recognized for a property tax exemption.
The Case Behind the Ruling
For over two decades, Efraim Marcus served as the Torah reader for Harrison Orthodox Minyan, a modern Orthodox Jewish synagogue in Harrison, New York. His role involved leining from the Torah on weekday mornings, Shabbat, and Yomim Tovim.
Initially, Marcus lived outside Harrison and traveled to the synagogue for services, sometimes staying at the rabbi’s home when necessary. The situation became problematic in 2014 when, following the birth of his third child, Marcus determined it was not feasible for him to continue serving as the baal koreh while living so far away. As an observant Jew, Marcus could not drive on the Sabbath or Yom Tov and the burden of distance threatened to end his ability to continue serving the congregation.
Understanding that the congregation would lose its baal koreh without a solution, a generous synagogue member purchased a residential property just 0.2 miles from the synagogue and donated it to the congregation. The property served not only as Marcus’s family residence but also as a space for tutoring congregants and holding various religious events.
The Legal Battle
When the synagogue applied for a tax exemption on the property under New York’s Real Property Tax Law (RPTL) Section 420-a, local authorities denied the application, arguing the property was not being used for exempt religious purposes but primarily as a private residence.
The synagogue maintained that the property was “used principally and primarily for carrying out the [synagogue’s] religious purposes,” with the residence being necessary to retain the services of their professional baal koreh.
The trial court denied the shul’s application for a tax exemption, concluding, among other things, that the property was not “intimately related to the [petitioner’s] religious objectives.” The trial court further questioned whether it was necessary for the petitioner to provide Marcus with a residence, but also expressed doubts about whether it was even necessary for the petitioner to employ a distinct Torah reader at all, as opposed to having “other people” read from the religious scrolls during services. The trial court reasoned that taxpayers should not be expected to pay property taxes on the property merely because a member of the synagogue’s congregation had generously decided to provide Marcus with a home.
The dispute ultimately reached the Appellate Division, which reversed the lower court’s decision and granted the tax exemption for the 2015 tax year.
The Court’s Reasoning and Its Relevance to Orthodox Communities
Justice Lourdes M. Ventura, writing for the appeals court, demonstrated a nuanced understanding of Orthodox Jewish practices that many in our community will appreciate. The court recognized that Marcus’s role as a baal koreh was full-time and similar to an assistant rabbi, noting he was “musically gifted” with specialized skills developed through many years of religious training.
The court directly acknowledged the halachic constraints that governed the situation. “The requirement of reading from the Torah during services is absolute and cannot be waived,” the court noted, quoting the synagogue’s rabbi. The court’s understanding extended to the practical realities of Sabbath observance. The decision explicitly acknowledged that observant Jews cannot drive on the Sabbath and holy days, making proximity to the synagogue essential for the baal koreh to fulfill his duties. For communities where the eruv’s boundaries and walking distances dictate much of communal life, this judicial recognition is remarkably affirming.
Historical Context and Relevant Precedents
The appellate court’s decision drew upon several fascinating precedents that demonstrate how New York courts have long protected religious institutions. In Sephardic Congregation of South Monsey v. Town of Ramapo, a previous case involving a rabbi’s residence located on the same property as the synagogue, the court granted an exemption, noting the rabbi’s dedication of “40 to 45 hours per week” to his congregation. What makes the Harrison decision particularly groundbreaking is that it extends similar protections to non-clergy staff who perform essential religious functions.
The court also invoked Matter of Yeshivath Shearith Hapletah v. Assessor of Town of Fallsburg, where housing facilities for faculty, staff, students, and their families were found to be “necessary and reasonably incidental” to the primary purpose of the 31-acre property (including 10 acres of woodland) whose primary purpose was providing religious instruction.
The court also cited to People ex rel. Watchtower Bible &Tract Socy. v Haring which eloquently articulated why society has historically valued religious tax exemptions: “[F]rom an early day, lawmakers deemed ‘the religious, moral, and intellectual culture afforded by’ religious organizations ‘beneficial to the public, necessary to the advancement of civilization… and the promotion of the welfare of society,’ thereby warranting ‘relief from the burden of taxation.’’
In addition, the court here cited a powerful reference to Matter of Diocese of Rochester v. Planning Board of Town of Brighton, which held that “this state has ‘declared a policy that’ certain institutions, such as ‘churches and schools[,] are more important than local taxes, and that it is in furtherance of the general welfare to exclude such institutions from taxation.’”
Implications for Orthodox Communities
This ruling carries profound implications for Orthodox Jewish communities that rely on specialized religious staff, such as a baal koreh or baal tefillah to maintain regular, halachically proper services. Finding such individuals within walking distance is not always easy. This case provides that housing for essential personnel may be tax-exempt when necessary for fulfilling the organization’s religious mission.
Just as importantly, the decision confirms that courts will look beyond job titles or appearances and assess whether a property is genuinely used in service of a religious purpose. This broad interpretation aligns with the precedent set in Matter of St. Luke’s Hosp. v. Boyland, where the Court of Appeals concluded that renting hospital apartments for profit did not preclude a tax exemption, as the rentals facilitated the hospital’s core mission of recruiting and training medical staff. Here, the fact that the residence was also used for tutoring and hosting religious events helped strengthen the synagogue’s case. The same logic applies to religious institutions, such as kollels or seminaries, which may rent out housing while still maintaining tax-exempt status, provided the use supports their overall religious mission.
In an era where religious accommodations are increasingly challenged, this case is a reminder that the law can still recognize the practical realities of religious life – and that with the right approach, our institutions can protect both their values and their viability.
