Opinion
October 24, 1995
Appeal from the Supreme Court, New York County (Stanley Parness, J.).
To the extent that RPTL 1802 is ambiguous in its designation of real property, the legislative history makes clear that the designation is limited to residential buildings with one, two or three units, as respondents contend, and not to buildings with up to three apartments plus any number of commercial units, as petitioner contends.
Petitioner is not entitled to have the ambiguity construed in her favor, since the principle that taxing statutes are to be construed in favor of the taxpayer applies only in determining whether property is subject to taxation, not to whether it is being taxed at the correct rate ( see, Matter of Grace v. New York State Tax Commn., 37 N.Y.2d 193, 196). In the latter regard, the construction given the statute by respondents is entitled to deference ( see, Matter of New York State Assn. of Life Underwriters v. New York State Banking Dept., 83 N.Y.2d 353, 359-360).
Concur — Rosenberger, J.P., Kupferman, Williams and Tom, JJ.