
    [741 NE2d 113, 718 NYS2d 268]
    In the Matter of Juliet Colella et al., Respondents, v Board of Assessors of the County of Nassau et al., Appellants.
    Argued October 19, 2000;
    decided November 30, 2000
    
      POINTS OF COUNSEL
    
      Alfred F. Samenga, County Attorney of Nassau County, Mineola (Gerald R. Podlesak of counsel), for Board of Assessors of the County of Nassau, appellant.
    Petitioners-respondents do not have standing to bring and maintain this CPLR article 78 proceeding. (Van Deventer v Long Is. City, 139 NY 133; Matter of Dudley v Kerwick, 52 NY2d 542; B & F Bldg. Corp. v Liebig, 76 NY2d 689; Matter of Dairylea Coop. v Walkley, 38 NY2d 6; Society of Plastics Indus. v County of Suffolk, 77 NY2d 761.)
    
      Rivkin, Radler & Kremer, L. L. P., Uniondale (Evan H. Krinick, Erica B. Garay and Cheryl F. Korman of counsel), for Yun Lin Temple, appellant.
    I. Review of petitioners’ claims is improper inasmuch as they fail to present a justiciable claim that lies within the judiciary’s power to review. (Matter of New York State Inspection, Sec. & Law Enforcement Empls. v Cuomo, 64 NY2d 233; Matter of State Indus. Commn., 224 NY 13; Jiggetts v Grinker, 75 NY2d 411; Matter of Prospect v Cohalan, 65 NY2d 867; Klostermann v Cuomo, 61 NY2d 525; Matter of Sherrill v O’Brien, 188 NY 185; Saxton v Carey, 44 NY2d 545; Van Deventer v Long Is. City, 139 NY 133; Matter of Dudley v Kerwick, 52 NY2d 542, 54 NY2d 626, 642; People ex rel. Outer Ct. v Miller, 161 Misc 603, 256 App Div 814, 280 NY 825.) II. Petitioners lack standing to challenge the County Board of Assessors’ grant of a mandatory Real Property Tax Law § 420-a exemption to the Temple. (Society of Plastics Indus. v County of Suffolk, 77 NY2d 761; Community Bd. 7 v Schaffer, 84 NY2d 148; Cuomo v Long Is. Light. Co., 71 NY2d 349; Rudder v Pataki, 93 NY2d 273; Schieffelin v Komfort, 212 NY 520; Matter of Transactive Corp. v New York State Dept. of Social Servs., 92 NY2d 579; Matter of Mobil Oil Corp. v Syracuse Indus. Dev. Agency, 76 NY2d 428; Matter of Sun-Brite Car Wash v Board of Zoning & Appeals, 69 NY2d 406; Rudder v Pataki, 93 NY2d 273; Matter of Town of E. Hampton v State of New York, 263 AD2d 94.) III. The County Board properly afforded the Temple a mandatory tax exemption under RPTL 420-a. (Matter of Yeshivath Shearith Hapletah v Assessor of Town of Fallsburg, 79 NY2d 244; Kahal Bnei Emunim & Talmud Torah Bnei Simon Israel v Town of Fallsburg, 78 NY2d 194; Matter of Nassau County Hispanic Found. [Board of Assessors], 198 AD2d 357; Matter of Association of Bar v Lewisohn, 34 NY2d 143; Matter of Symphony Space v Tishelman, 60 NY2d 33; Matter of Holy Spirit Assn. for Unification of World Christianity v Tax Commn., 55 NY2d 512; Matter of 
      
      New York Botanical Garden v Assessors of Town of Washington, 55 NY2d 328; Williams Institutional Colored M. E. Church v City of New York, 275 App Div 311, 300 NY 716; Jewish Mental Health Socy. v Village of Hastings-on-Hudson, 279 NY 764; Matter of Judge Rotenberg Educ. Ctr. v Maul, 91 NY2d 298.) IV. The Court below erroneously reached the merits of the controversy and granted the petition to annul the determination of the Board of Assessors without affording the Temple the opportunity to interpose an answer. (Matter of Williams v Cornelius, 76 NY2d 542; Matter of Nassau BOCES Cent. Council of Teachers v Board of Coop. Educ. Servs., 63 NY2d 100; Matter of Mid-Hudson Workshop for Disabled v City of Poughkeepsie, 245 AD2d 291; Matter of Farm Sanctuary v Patton, 221 AD2d 67.)
    
      Hamburger, Maxon & Yaffe, L. L. P., Melville (Richard Hamburger, Lane T. Maxson and David N. Yaffe of counsel), for respondents.
    I. One taxpayer has standing to complain of the omission or exemption from the tax rolls of the real property of another taxpayer situated within the same taxing jurisdiction. (Matter of Dairylea Coop. v Walkley, 38 NY2d 6; Society of Plastics Indus. v County of Suffolk, 77 NY2d 761; Boryszewski v Brydges, 37 NY2d 361; Matter of Dudley v Kerwick, 52 NY2d 542; Matter of Board of Educ. v Baker, 241 App Div 574, 266 NY 636; County of Herkimer v Village of Herkimer, 251 App Div 126, 279 NY 560; Matter of Association of Bar v Lewisohn, 34 NY2d 143; Foss v City of Rochester, 65 NY2d 247; Johnson v Smith, 297 NY 165; Matter of Atlas Tel. Co., 273 NY 51.) II. Absent obtaining a special permit from the Village Zoning Board of Appeals for “a church, or similar place of worship,” the religious use of the property is illegal and unauthorized. That being the case, the Temple is not entitled to a tax exemption from the County pursuant to RJPTL 420-a for residential property. (Matter of Association of Bar v Lewisohn, 34 NY2d 143; Matter of Oxford Group-Moral Re-Armament, MRA v Sweet, 309 NY 744; Matter of United States Columbarium Co. v Tax Commn., 19 Misc 2d 256; Order Minor Coventuals v Lee, 64 AD2d 227; Matter of Syracuse Univ., 59 Misc 2d 684; Jewish Mental Health Socy. v Village of Hastings-on-Hudson, 255 App Div 77, 279 NY 764; Matter of Yeshivath Shearith Hapletah v Assessor of Town of Fallsburg, 79 NY2d 244; Matter of New York Botanical Garden v Assessors of Town of Washington, 55 NY2d 328; Kahal Bnei Emunim & Talmud Torah Bnei Simon Israel v Town of Fallsburg, 78 NY2d 194; Matter of Symphony Space v Tishelman, 60 NY2d 33.) III. The Temple is not entitled to a tax exemption because it is a foreign corporation which is neither authorized to do business nor has filed an application for authority to do business in the State of New York pursuant to section 1301 et seq. of the Business Corporation Law, and is not authorized to conduct activities and has not filed an application for authority to conduct activities in the State of New York pursuant to section 1301 et seq. of the Not-For-Profit Corporation Law. (WHYY, Inc. v Borough of Glassboro, 393 US 117.) IV. The Court below properly granted the petition without affording the Temple an opportunity to answer. (Matter of Nassau BOCES Cent. Council of Teachers v Board of Coop. Educ. Servs., 63 NY2d 100.)
    
      Cohen Swados Wright Hanifin Bradford & Brett, L. L. P., Buffalo (Ian A. Bradford, Robert W. Patterson and Larry Kerman of counsel), for Town Board of the Town of Aurora and others, amici curiae.
    
    Under well-established principles of standing and justiciability, taxpayers are not permitted to sue to challenge an individual, discretionary decision of an assessor to exempt from taxation real property owned by another private taxpayer. (Van Deventer v Long Is. City, 139 NY 133; Matter of Dudley v Kerwick, 52 NY2d 542, 54 NY2d 626; Matter of Gordon v Marrone, 151 Misc 2d 164; Matter of New York State Assn. of Tobacco & Candy Distribs. v New York State Tax Appeals Tribunal, 159 AD2d 132, 76 NY2d 1019; Fallica v Town of Brookhaven, 69 AD2d 579; Matter of Dubbs v Board of Assessment Review, 46 AD2d 651; People ex rel. Hoesterey v Taylor, 210 App Div 196, 239 NY 626; Matter of Dairylea Coop. v Walkley, 38 NY2d 6.)
    
      Cadwalader, Wickersham & Taft, New York City (Peter G. Bergmann and Brian T. McGovern of counsel), for New York Association of Homes and Services for the Aging, Inc., amicus curiae.
    
    I. The Court below’s ruling has implications for New York Association of Homes and Services for the Aging’s members and not-for-profit organizations across the State. II. The Court below’s ruling — granting standing to any and all taxpayers to challenge local real property exemption determinations — is inconsistent with the prudential limitations on standing established by this Court. (Society of Plastics Indus. v County of Suffolk, 77 NY2d 761; Matter of Dairylea Coop. v Walkley, 38 NY2d 6; Matter of Diocese of Rochester v Planning Bd., 1 NY2d 508; People ex rel. Watchtower Bible & Tract Socy. v Haring, 8 NY2d 350; Van Deventer v Long Is. City, 139 NY 133; Matter of Transactive Corp. v New York State Dept. of 
      
      Social Servs., 92 NY2d 579; Matter of Abrams v New York City Tr. Auth., 39 NY2d 990; Matter of Knight-Ridder Broadcasting v Greenberg, 70 NY2d 151; Matter of Dudley v Kerwick, 52 NY2d 542.)
    
      Farrell Fritz, P. C., Uniondale (John M. Armentano and Colleen C. McMahon of counsel), for Incorporated Village of Old Westbury, amicus curiae.
    
    I. Petitioners were properly found to have standing because no one else may challenge the Board’s action. (Matter of Schulz v State of New York, 81 NY2d 336; Boryszewski v Brydges, 37 NY2d 361; Society of Plastics Indus. v County of Suffolk, 77 NY2d 761; Matter of Bradford Cent. School Dist. v Ambach, 56 NY2d 158; Bloom v Mayor of City of N. Y., 35 AD2d 92, 28 NY2d 952; Matter of Guardian Life Ins. Co. v Bohlinger, 308 NY 174; Matter of Dudley v Kerwick, 52 NY2d 542; Matter of Campbell Oil Co. v Chu, 127 Misc 2d 281; Fallica v Town of Brookhaven, 69 AD2d 579; Matter of Dubbs v Board of Assessment Review, 46 AD2d 651.) II. Petitioners were properly deemed to have standing because they stand to incur cognizable injuries distinct from County taxpayers and the general public. (Society of Plastics Indus. v County of Suffolk, 77 NY2d 761; Matter of Dairylea Coop. v Walkley, 38 NY2d 6; Matter of Bradford Cent. School Dist. v Ambach, 56 NY2d 158; Fallica v Town of Brookhaven, 69 AD2d 579, 52 NY2d 794; Matter of Dubbs v Board of Assessment Review, 46 AD2d 651; Matter of Dudley v Kerwick, 52 NY2d 542, 54 NY2d 626; Matter of Transactive Corp. v New York State Dept. of Social Servs., 92 NY2d 579.) III. Failure to obtain a permit for its proposed use acts as an absolute bar to a property tax exemption pursuant to section 420-a of the RPTL. (Matter of Oxford Group-Moral Re-Armament, MRA v Sweet, 309 NY 744; Matter of United States Columbarium Co. v Tax Commn., 19 Misc 2d 256.)
    
      Eliot Spitzer, Attorney General, Albany (Andrew D. Bing, Preeta D. Bansal and Daniel Smirlock of counsel), for Attorney General of the State of New York, amicus curiae.
    
    Petitioners lack standing to challenge the Board’s renewal of a tax exemption pursuant to RPTL 420-a for real property in the County owned by a third party where the zoning and environmental concerns that are the focus of their objection to the property’s tax status are not within the zone of interests of the Real Property Tax Law. (Society of Plastics Indus. v County of Suffolk, 77 NY2d 761; Matter of Dairylea Coop. v Walkley, 38 NY2d 6; Matter of Transactive Corp. v New York State Dept. of Social 
      
      Servs., 92 NY2d 579; Matter of Sun-Brite Car Wash v Board of Zoning & Appeals, 69 NY2d 406; Clarke v Securities Indus. Assn., 479 US 388; Bull v United States, 295 US 247; Matter of Dudley v Kerwick, 52 NY2d 542; Van Deventer v Long Is. City, 139 NY 133; Boryszewski v Brydges, 37 NY2d 361; Town of Harrison v County of Westchester, 13 NY2d 258.)
   OPINION OF THE COURT

Levine, J.

Petitioners brought this CPLR article 78 proceeding against the Nassau County Board of Assessors challenging the Board’s grant and renewal of a real property tax exemption under RPTL 420-a (for “property [used] exclusively for religious * * * purposes” [subd (1) (a)]), with respect to the land and building owned and occupied by appellant Yun Lin Temple in the Village of Old Westbury. The Temple is a religious corporation organized in California as a religious non-profit public benefit corporation. Its charter recites that it is dedicated to the promulgation, promotion and study of Black Sect Tibetan Tantric Buddhism.

Petitioners are residents of the Village whose homes are either immediately adjacent to or nearby the Temple’s property. Their petition alleges that they have been injured in being subject to higher real property taxes as a result of the wrongfully granted exemption to the Temple property. Petitioners do not contest that the Temple’s exclusive use of the property is, as the Temple asserts, for purely non-profit religious purposes of teaching, meditation and the spiritual development of members of that Buddhist sect. Rather, petitioners assert that the Temple lost its entitlement to the statutory religious use exemption because of non-compliance with the Village’s zoning ordinance (requiring a special permit for use as a house of worship in the residential district where the Temple’s property is located) and, as a foreign religious corporation, for failing to obtain authority to do business in this State under the Business Corporation Law, and to obtain authority to conduct activities in this State pursuant to the Not-For-Profit Corporation Law.

On objections in point of law by the Board and the Temple’s motion to dismiss, Supreme Court dismissed the petition on the grounds that petitioners lacked standing and that entitlement to the religious use exemption under RPTL 420-a was not dependent upon an applicant’s compliance with local zoning laws or the requirements of the Business Corporation Law or Not-For-Profit Corporation Law.

The Appellate Division reversed (266 AD2d 286), disagreeing with Supreme Court on both grounds. We granted leave to appeal and now reverse, concluding that petitioners lacked standing to bring this proceeding, and thus reaching no other issue.

Petitioners claim that, as real property owners of Nassau County, they have standing because they are directly harmed financially in a calculable (albeit small) amount by an erroneous grant of a religious use exemption from taxation of the Temple’s property. They point .out that the effect of taking the Temple’s property off the tax rolls is to reduce the total assessed value of all non-exempt properties in the County. They claim injury to the extent that the tax rate applied to the remaining total assessed property in the County (including their own) must be increased to make up for the lost revenue attributable to the removal of the Temple’s property from the tax rolls.

While petitioners may have thus demonstrated that, as County real property owners and taxpayers, they have incurred some possible measurable financial damage from the challenged tax exemption granted the Temple for its single parcel here, that alone cannot be deemed enough to confer standing without entirely overruling Van Deventer v Long Is. City (139 NY 133 [1893]). This Court held in Van Deventer that a real property taxpayer whose “only complaint * * * is that he was taxed too much, because other property was omitted from the rolls” (id,., at 138) had no legal recourse to complain of an individual real property tax exemption granted with respect to property of another. The Van Deventer Court pointed to the serious policy implications if a taxpayer was accorded standing to judicially challenge an individual exemption from real property taxation solely because of its adverse effect on that person’s real property tax liability. First, the Court noted that such a theory of taxpayer standing would extend not only to a challenge to an exclusion of a parcel from the tax rolls, but to “those numerous cases” where properties for one reason or another are under-assessed (id., at 138). The Court recognized that acceptance of the plaintiffs claim of standing would seriously impair the promptness, certainty and finality necessary for the effective enforcement of any system of local real property taxation.

“It is quite apparent that if the plaintiffs contention is well founded very few assessments could stand assaults, and that the collection of revenues for governmental purposes would be very uncertain, and that interminable litigation would attend its collection” (id., at 138).

Time has not diminished the validity or seriousness of the concerns that led this Court in Van Deventer to deny taxpayer standing in situations such as presented here.

Our later decision in Matter of Dudley v Kerwick (52 NY2d 542) does not mandate automatic taxpayer standing to challenge the grant of the religious use exemption here. In Dudley, we remarked that the “gist of the petitions is that they allege a broad perversion of the entire process of granting exemptions, with the resulting deterioration of the tax base and imposition on petitioners of a hugely disproportionate share of municipal expenses” (id., at 550). The petitions in Dudley alleged that the town assessor had granted exemptions to 88% of the town’s landowners as officers in a single, purported religious denomination calling itself the Universal Life Church. We concluded in Dudley that, “[w]hen an assessor grants exemption from taxation in wholesale fashion indicating that he has arrogated this legislative power [to define the grounds for property tax exemptions] to himself, he cannot cloak himself with protection surrounding individual discretionary decisions, and relief by way of an article 78 proceeding will lie” (id., at 551).

We are not called upon here to determine the scope of derelictions by assessors, which must be in some manner systemic in nature, that would afford taxpayer standing by analogy to the Matter of Dudley v Kerwick precedent. Here, petitioners have not alleged anything more than a legally erroneous determination to grant a religious use tax exemption regarding a single parcel of real estate, which concededly would only have an insignificant impact upon the tax base of Nassau County. Dudley was never intended to confer general taxpayer standing under these circumstances. Indeed, in affording the limited recognition of the petitioners’ right to sue in Dudley, the Court justified conferring standing for the very reason that “petitioners here have alleged far more than erroneous determinations regarding some of the property in the town” (id., at 551 [emphasis supplied]).

Likewise, petitioners have not satisfied our two-fold test for standing to challenge governmental action — that is, injury in fact, which harm “falls within the ‘zone of interests,’ or concerns, sought to be promoted or protected by the statutory provision under which the agency has acted” (Society of Plastics Indus. v County of Suffolk, 77 NY2d 761, 773; see, Rudder v Pataki, 93 NY2d 273, 280; Matter of Transactive Corp. v New York State Dept. of Social Servs., 92 NY2d 579, 587). It is highly dubious as to whether the minuscule even if calculable, adverse real property tax impact on the individual petitioners here, an injury indistinguishable from that incurred by all other Nassau County real property owners, fulfills the first prong of the test for standing, that is, suffering “special damage, different in kind and degree from the community generally” (Matter of Sun-Brite Car Wash v Board of Zoning & Appeals, 69 NY2d 406, 413; see, Society of Plastics Indus. v County of Suffolk, supra, 77 NY2d, at 775, n 1).

Nor do petitioners satisfy the zone of interest requirement for standing. Society of Plastics Indus. v County of Suffolk (supra) is instructive on this issue. In that case, a Suffolk County plastic products maker, and other non-local parties, sought to challenge under the State Environmental Quality Review Act a local law prohibiting the countywide use of plastic products by retail food establishments. In Society of Plastics Indus., we concluded that the local petitioner’s assertion of incurring environmental harm from the local law was “tenuous” (id., at 777) and no different from the environmental impact upon “the public at large” (id., at 778). As already discussed, petitioners’ asserted injury-in-fact in the instant case suffers from the same shortcomings. In addition, petitioners’ claim is that the Temple violated the Village’s zoning ordinance and failed to seek required authorizations under the Business Corporation Law and Not-For-Profit Corporation Law. Compliance with such totally unrelated local and State legislation is not within the zone of interest of RPTL 420-a, and petitioners do not contest that the Temple otherwise fully qualifies for an exemption under the provision. Petitioners thus lack standing to challenge the Board’s determination.

Petitioners do not qualify for “Common-Law Taxpayer Standing” (Matter of Transactive Corp., supra, 92 NY2d, at 589). We fashioned a remedy for taxpayers to challenge important governmental actions, despite such parties being otherwise insufficiently interested for standing purposes, when “the failure to accord such standing would be in effect to erect an impenetrable barrier to any judicial scrutiny of legislative action” (Boryszewski v Brydges, 37 NY2d 361, 364). That doctrine should not be applied, however, to permit challenges to the determinations of local governmental officials having no appreciable public significance beyond the immediately affected parties, by persons having only the remotest legitimate interest in the matter. The cogency of this position is reinforced by the fact that the Legislature has seen fit to confer general taxpayer standing to challenge the actions of local governmental officials in only limited situations, none of which would apply here (see, General Municipal Law § 51).

Accordingly, the order of the Appellate Division should be reversed, with costs, and the petition dismissed.

Chief Judge Kaye and Judges Smith, Ciparick, Wesley and Rosenblatt concur.

Order reversed, etc.  