We're ESDC. Our subsidiary QWDC is developing the Queens West waterfront project in Hunters Point. A private developer will borrow from outside lenders, and QWDC will be named mortgagee -- alone or as co-mortgagee -- before assigning its interest to the real lenders, with the mortgage likely severed, refinanced, and even converted from leasehold to fee financing over many years as multiple parcels are built out in stages. Is all of that exempt from mortgage recording tax?

Plain-English summary

In 1989, ESDC (then the New York State Urban Development Corporation), the NYC Public Development Corporation (now NYC Economic Development Corporation), the City of New York, and the Port Authority of New York & New Jersey signed a Memorandum of Understanding to comprehensively redevelop a roughly 94-acre East River waterfront tract in the Hunters Point section of Queens -- the "Queens West" project. ESDC adopted a General Project Plan in 1990-91 envisioning about 6.4 million square feet of residential space, 2.4 million square feet of office/hotel space, 225,000 square feet of retail, and 115,000 square feet of public facilities, aimed at removing substandard/unsanitary conditions, expanding NYC's housing stock outside Manhattan, and opening public waterfront access. In 1992, ESDC created a subsidiary, Queens West Development Corporation (QWDC), with ESDC as majority shareholder and the City/EDC/Port Authority as minority shareholders, to implement the Project across four stages.

QWDC built the Hunters Point Community Park (completed 1995) and, starting in 1996, began ground-leasing Stage I parcels to developers who constructed residential buildings per ESDC's General Project Plan and design guidelines, with lease payments benefiting QWDC (and through it, the Public Sponsors). For three additional Stage I parcels designated in 1998, developers will fund construction with sales-tax, real-estate-tax, and mortgage-recording-tax exemptions built into the designation documents (in exchange for payments in lieu of those taxes to QWDC), and will borrow from outside lenders secured by mortgages against their LEASEHOLD interest -- QWDC's fee interest stays unencumbered. QWDC will be initially named mortgagee (alone or with lenders) and record the mortgages, even though all economic rights inure to the lenders, to whom QWDC assigns its interest afterward. Over time, the mortgages may be severed, supplemented, modified, converted from construction to permanent financing, refinanced, or -- if a lessee later exercises a purchase option -- converted from a leasehold mortgage into one secured by the fee interest.

Article 11 of the Tax Law (§ 253) taxes mortgage recording, and § 252 doesn't provide ESDC a specific exemption on its own terms -- but the UDC Act fills the gap: § 6254(1) makes UDC/ESDC "a corporate governmental agency of the state, constituting a political subdivision and public benefit corporation" (triggering common-law state-agency immunity, Hotel Waldorf-Astoria Corp. v. State Tax Commission); § 6262(2) extends UDC's "privileges, immunities, tax exemptions" to subsidiaries like QWDC; and § 6272 declares UDC and its subsidiaries "free from taxation of every kind" by the state and its political subdivisions. Because this 1968 exemption is a later, more specific enactment than the general 1909 mortgage recording tax statute (Williamsburgh Power Plant Corp. v. City of New York), reinforced by the UDC Act's controlling-statute clause (§ 6283), liberal-construction mandate (§ 6284), and courts' tolerance of even "straw man" UDC ownership arrangements (Wein v. Beame), the Department concluded mortgage recording tax is not due on any Project mortgage where ESDC or QWDC is named mortgagee and presents it for recording. Later assignments, supplements, modifications, or amendments remain exempt as long as the secured principal debt doesn't increase; if it does, tax applies only to that increase.

What this means for you

ESDC subsidiaries and multi-stage waterfront/urban redevelopment projects

This is the FOUNDATIONAL opinion the Department later cited and applied again for QWDC's Stage III parcels (TSB-A-02(6)R, 2002) -- read both together to see how the same pass-through mortgagee exemption applies consistently as a project moves through multiple development stages over many years.

Developers and lenders on Queens West or similar ESDC-subsidiary waterfront projects

The mortgage recording tax exemption, combined with sales/real estate tax exemptions built into the developer designation documents (offset by payments in lieu of those taxes), is a core part of these projects' economic feasibility under current market conditions -- factor it into project underwriting from the start.

Common questions

Q: Does the exemption survive a leasehold mortgage later converting to a fee mortgage (if a lessee exercises a purchase option)?
A: The opinion describes this conversion as part of the ordinary course of these financings; the same supplemental-mortgage/no-increase-in-debt analysis under Tax Law § 255 would govern whether the conversion itself triggers new tax.

Q: Is QWDC treated the same as ESDC itself for this exemption?
A: Yes -- Unconsolidated Laws § 6262(2) expressly extends ESDC's own privileges, immunities, and tax exemptions to its subsidiaries, so QWDC doesn't need a separate common-law immunity analysis.

Q: Can other ESDC subsidiaries or projects rely on this specific opinion?
A: No. It binds the Department only as to this petitioner and these facts, though the Department applied the identical reasoning again for QWDC's later Stage III parcels in TSB-A-02(6)R.

Citations and references

Statutes and regulations:

• Tax Law § 253 (mortgage recording tax on real property mortgages)
• Tax Law § 250 (increases in secured indebtedness deemed a taxable mortgage)
• Tax Law § 252 (no exemption by reason of any other statute, absent later specific enactment)
• Tax Law § 255 (supplemental mortgage exemption where no new/further indebtedness)
• Unconsolidated Laws § 6254(1) (UDC as a corporate governmental agency, political subdivision, public benefit corporation)
• Unconsolidated Laws § 6262(2) (UDC subsidiaries inherit UDC's privileges, immunities, and tax exemptions)
• Unconsolidated Laws § 6272 (UDC and subsidiaries free from taxation of every kind by state/local government)
• Unconsolidated Laws § 6283 (UDC Act controls over inconsistent other laws); § 6284 (liberal construction mandate)

Case law and prior opinions cited:

• Matter of Hamilton, 148 N.Y. 310 (state/municipal property for public purposes not subject to taxation)
• Hotel Waldorf-Astoria Corp. v. State Tax Commission, 86 A.D.2d 330 (common-law state-agency immunity doctrine)
• Wein v. Beame, 43 N.Y.2d 326 (liberal interpretation of UDC's tax exemption; "straw man" ownership arguments rejected)
• Williamsburgh Power Plant Corp. v. City of New York, 255 App. Div. 214, aff'd 280 N.Y. 551 (later specific enactment governs earlier general enactment)
• Franklin Society for Home Building and Savings v. Bennett, 282 N.Y. 79; Matter of Silberblatt, Inc. v. Tax Comm., 5 N.Y.2d 635 (MRT taxes the recording privilege, not the instrument)
• City of New York v. State Tax Commission, 130 A.D.2d 890 (supplemental mortgage treatment under § 255)
• New York State Urban Development Corp., TSB-A-93(4)R (March 10, 1993) (UDC common-law and statutory immunity)
• One Park Place Associates, TSB-A-82(1)M (May 24, 1982) (industrial development agency legal-title mortgages exempt)

Related later opinion (same statutory framework, same project, later stage):

• TSB-A-02(6)R (December 13, 2002) (QWDC's Stage III parcels of the same Queens West project)

Source

• Landing page: https://www.tax.ny.gov/pubs_and_bulls/advisory_opinions/mortgage_rec_ao_2000.htm
• Opinion: https://www.tax.ny.gov/pdf/advisory_opinions/mortgage/a00_3r.pdf

Original ruling text

New York State Department of Taxation and Finance

Office of Tax Policy Analysis
Technical Services Division

TSB-A-00(3)R
Mortgage Recording Tax
May 31, 2000

STATE OF NEW YORK
COMMISSIONER OF TAXATION AND FINANCE
ADVISORY OPINION

PETITION NO. M000106A

On January 6, 2000, a Petition for Advisory Opinion was received from New York State
Urban Development Corporation d/b/a Empire State Development Corp., 633 Third Avenue, 34th
Floor, New York, New York 10017. Additional information related to the Petition was received on
February 24, 2000.
The issues raised by Petitioner, the New York State Urban Development Corporation d/b/a
Empire State Development Corp. ("ESDC"), are whether:
(1) the taxes imposed by Article 11 of the New York State Tax Law and Chapter 26
of the New York Administrative Code (collectively, the "mortgage recording tax")
are due upon the recording of any mortgage of property that is part of ESDC's
Hunters Point (Queens West) Waterfront Development Use Improvement Project
(the "Project") where (a) ESDC is either the sole named mortgagee (whether as
trustee, agent, nominee or otherwise) or a co-mortgagee (whether or not a private
entity is the other co-mortgagee(s)); (b) ESDC records the mortgage; (c) the loan
funds secured by the mortgage are provided by one or more persons or entities other
than ESDC; and (d) the mortgage is entered into in furtherance of the Project
including, without limitation, use of the loan proceeds for Project development costs
incurred by parties other than ESDC ("Development costs").
(2) the mortgage recording taxes are due upon the recording of any mortgage of
property that is part of ESDC's Hunters Point (Queens West) Waterfront
Development Use Improvement Project where (a) ESDC is either the sole named
mortgagee (whether as trustee, agent, nominee or otherwise) or a co-mortgagee
(whether or not a private entity is the other co-mortgagee(s)); (b) ESDC records the
mortgage; (c) the loan funds secured by the mortgage are provided by one or more
persons or entities other than ESDC; and (d) the mortgage is entered into in
furtherance of the Project including, without limitation, use of the loan proceeds to
reimburse the Project developer for its initial funding of the Development costs early
in the construction cycle, and thereafter to fund any Development costs remaining for
the Project.
(3) the mortgage recording taxes are due upon the recording of the applicable
instrument or otherwise if the mortgage is assigned, supplemented, modified or
amended, or if the mortgage so assigned, supplemented, modified or amended is
thereafter from time to time assigned, supplemented, modified or amended to the

-2­
TSB-A-00(3)R
Mortgage Recording Tax
May 31, 2000

extent that the then outstanding principal indebtedness secured by the mortgage is not
increased (or, if increased, mortgage recording tax is to be imposed only with respect
to any increase in the amount of secured indebtedness, and then only if mortgage
recording tax would otherwise have been required to be paid on such additional
indebtedness).
Unless the context otherwise requires, as used in this opinion the term "ESDC" includes both
ESDC and its subsidiaries, including the Queens West Development Corporation. "Development
costs" as used in this opinion, include, without limitation, all "hard" and "soft" costs with respect to
acquisition and construction, all carrying costs, loan fees, acquisition and construction period
interest, start-up expenses, and all related costs and fees. "Supplemented" and "supplement" as used
in this opinion, include, without limitation, any spreader, consolidation, substitution, severance,
restatement and/or extension.
In 1989, a Memorandum of Understanding was entered into among ESDC, the New York
City Public Development Corporation (now the New York City Economic Development
Corporation) ("EDC"), The City of New York (the "City") and the Port Authority of New York &
New Jersey (the "PA") (collectively, ESDC, EDC, the City and the PA, being referred to as the
"Public Sponsors"). The Memorandum of Understanding provided for the comprehensive
redevelopment of an approximately 94-acre tract of land (including lands under water) along the East
River in the Hunters Point section of Queens County, New York (the "Project site"). In 1990-91,
the ESDC adopted a General Project Plan for the Project. The Plan includes approximately 6.4
million sq. ft. of residential space, 2.4 million sq. ft. of office/hotel space, 225,000 sq. ft. of retail
space and 115,000 sq. ft. of public facilities. In 1992, ESDC, with the agreement of the City, EDC
and the PA, created a ESDC subsidiary, called the Queens West Development Corporation
("QWDC"), for the purpose of implementing the Project. ESDC is the majority shareholder in
QWDC and EDC and the PA are minority shareholders.
The principal goal of the Project is to remove the substandard and unsanitary conditions that
currently impede effective and economic use of the Project site and to replace these conditions with
a viable development consisting of residential, commercial, cultural and recreational facilities and
providing public access to the waterfront. The Project also seeks to implement a range of public
policy objectives including:
(1) The expansion and reinforcement of the boroughs of New York City outside of
Manhattan as feasible alternate locations to Manhattan for development.
(2) The creation of commercial sites with large floor plates for businesses which, but
for the availability of such sites, would leave the City or State of New York for other
locations.

-3­
TSB-A-00(3)R
Mortgage Recording Tax
May 31, 2000

(3) The recognition of historical prominence of the Project site as the symbolic
"gateway" to Queens and creation of a new image for and access to the water's edge
for use by residents, employees and visitors.
(4) The creation of a new mixed-use neighborhood, including a significant expansion
of the City's housing stock.
(5) The expansion of the City's tax base by opening underdeveloped areas, generating
new employment and business opportunities, and increasing potential revenue
generation.
(6) The creation of a significant public open space that opens the Queens waterfront
to passive recreational uses for the use of all people, through the provision of a
continuous publicly accessible waterfront esplanade.
The Project is intended to be implemented in four stages. The Stage I and II development
areas comprise the northern end of the Project site and will be developed primarily for residential
use. A portion of these residential units will be set aside for low, moderate, and middle-income
households, the elderly and residents of local community board districts. The Stage III area is
located at the southern end of the Project site and also will be developed primarily for residential use.
The Stage IV development area, located in the southern central portion of the Project site, will form
a commercial core. All four development areas will include open space for public recreational
and/or community uses.
Stage I development commenced with the construction by QWDC of the Hunters Point
Community Park, which was completed in 1995. In addition, in May 1996, QWDC entered into a
ground lease of the first parcel in the Stage I area, pursuant to which the lessee constructed a
residential building on the site in accordance with ESDC's General Project Plan and design
guidelines.
In July 1998, QWDC designated a developer for three additional parcels in the Stage I area
and set forth the general terms of the definitive documents governing the development of the parcels.
Under terms of the designation, QWDC will lease the parcels to the developer and the
developer will construct a residential building on each in accordance with ESDC's General Project
Plan and design guidelines. Payments under the leases inure to the benefit of QWDC (and through
QWDC to the Public Sponsors).
The designation also provides for an exemption from sales taxes on construction materials
purchased during the initial construction phase, from real estate taxes and from any mortgage
recording tax. The developer is required, however, to make certain payments to QWDC in lieu of
sales, real estate and mortgage recording taxes, which will inure generally to the benefit of the

-4­
TSB-A-00(3)R
Mortgage Recording Tax
May 31, 2000

QWDC or the Public Sponsors. The savings provided by the mortgage recording tax exemption
would reduce the total cost of the development of the parcels. QWDC and the Public Sponsors
consider this savings to be necessary to make the development of the parcels, in accordance with the
General Project Plan and the design guidelines and under current market conditions, economically
feasible.
Under the contemplated financing arrangements, the developer will borrow funds from
sources (the "Lenders") other than ESDC, QWDC or the Public Sponsors. These funds will be used
for Project development costs. Alternatively, the developer may initially fund the development costs
itself, and arrange for financing from the Lenders later in the construction cycle (i.e., subsequent to
the closing of the lease and the commencement of construction, but prior to the issuance of a
temporary certificate of occupancy for all or part of the building). In either case, the borrowing will
be secured by one or more mortgages against the developer's leasehold interest. QWDC's fee interest
will not be encumbered by the mortgage(s). QWDC initially will be a named mortgagee, either alone
or with other Lenders, and will record the mortgage(s). Although QWDC will be named as a
mortgagee, all of the rights under the mortgages(s) will inure to the benefits of the Lenders, who will
for all purposes be the beneficial owners of the mortgages. Upon recording the mortgage(s), QWDC
will assign to the Lenders all of QWDC's right, title and interest in and to the mortgage(s). After
assigning its interest to the Lenders, QWDC will continue to hold fee title, and will have
enforcement rights under the lease.
After QWDC initially records the mortgage(s) and assigns its interest to the Lenders, the
mortgage(s) may from time to time be further assigned, supplemented, modified or amended and,
in this event, appropriate instruments reflecting the assignment, supplement, modification or
amendment will be recorded. For example, in accordance with customary mortgage financing
practices, mortgages securing construction financing may be assigned, supplemented, modified and
converted to permanent financing upon completion of construction or the expiration of the term of
the initial loans. Permanent loans may be refinanced or assigned by one lender to another. The
identity of the mortgagor may also change either by reason of the assignment of the
lessee/mortgagor's interest to an affiliate or to an unrelated person. Finally, if and when the lessee
exercises the purchase option contained in the lease, a leasehold mortgage may be converted into a
mortgage secured by a fee interest or may be spread to cover the fee interest.
Applicable Law
Article 11 of the Tax Law imposes taxes on the recording of mortgages of real property
measured by the principal debt or obligation secured or which under any contingency may be secured
by the mortgage. Section 252 of Article 11 of the Tax Law, which sets forth the preponderance of
the exemptions from the mortgage recording tax, provides, with certain exceptions not relevant here,
that "[n]o mortgage of real property situated within this state shall be exempt, and no person or
corporation owning any debt or obligation secured by mortgage of real property situated within this

-5­
TSB-A-00(3)R
Mortgage Recording Tax
May 31, 2000

state shall be exempt, from the taxes imposed by this article by reason of anything contained in any
other statute."
Even though section 252 of the Tax Law does not provide a specific exemption for the
operations of UDC, it is well established that State agencies enjoy an immunity from taxation
independent of the statutory exemptions listed is section 252 of the Tax Law for property
utilized in the public interest. (New York State Urban Development Corp., Adv Op Comm T&F,
March 10, 1993, TSB-A-93(4)-R.)
Subdivision (1) of section 6254 of the New York State Urban Development Act (the UDC
act) states in pertinent part as follows:
[t]here is hereby created the New York State urban development corporation.
The corporation shall be a corporate governmental agency of the state, constituting
a political subdivision and public benefit corporation. . . .
In addition, subdivision (2) of section 6262 of the UDC Act states:
[t]he corporation may transfer to any subsidiary corporation any moneys, real
or personal or mixed property or any project in order to carry out the purposes of this
act. Each such subsidiary corporation shall have all the privileges, immunities, tax
exemptions and other exemptions of the corporation to the extent the same are not
inconsistent with the statute or statutes pursuant to which such subsidiary was
incorporated. . . .
In a March 29, 1913, opinion, the Attorney General opined that no mortgage recording tax
was due when New York State acted as mortgagor and quoted the following passage from Matter
of Hamilton, 148 NY 310, 313-314:
The property held by the state, or by any of its municipal divisions, for public
purposes, is not, and never has been, subject to taxation . . . The end and object of all
taxation is to raise revenue for the purpose of defraying the expenses of government,
and since no revenue could be raised by imposing taxes on property owned by the
state itself, or by any of its political divisions, such property is in no just or practical
sense the subject of taxation. . . .
This principle has been applied in exempting from the mortgage recording tax the recording
of mortgages on property the legal title of which is held by an industrial development agency and
the beneficial ownership of which is held by a non-exempt private party. (See 1982 0pns St Comp
No. 82-188, p 240; One Park Place Associates, Adv Op St Tx Comm, May 24 1982,
TSB-A-82(1)(M) and New York State Urban Development Corp. supra.)

-6­
TSB-A-00(3)R
Mortgage Recording Tax
May 31, 2000

In Hotel Waldorf-Astoria Corp. v. State Tax Commission, 86 AD2d 330, 334, in
acknowledging that a $45 million mortgage secured by the Waldorf-Astoria hotel was exempt from
the mortgage recording tax because the mortgagee (the New York State Employees' Retirement
System) was a New York State agency, the court stated: "as a State agency, the Retirement System
enjoys an immunity from taxation independent of the statutory exemptions listed in Section 252 of
the Tax Law. . . ."
Furthermore, Section 6272 of the UDC Act provides, in pertinent part, that:
[t]he exercise of the powers granted by this act will be in all respects for the
benefit of the people of this state . . . and will constitute the performance of an
essential function . . . [UDC] and its subsidiaries shall not be required to pay any
taxes, other than assessments for local improvements, upon or in respect of a project
or of any property or moneys of [UDC] or any of its subsidiaries, levied by any
municipality or political subdivision of the state, nor shall [UDC] or its subsidiaries
be required to pay state taxes of any kind, and [UDC], its subsidiaries, projects,
property and moneys . . . shall at all times be free from taxation of every kind by the
state and by the municipalities and all other political subdivisions of the state. . . .
Section 6283 of the UDC Act states: "[i]nsofar as the provisions of this act are inconsistent
with the provisions of any other law, general, special or local, the provisions of this act shall be
controlling."
Also, Section 6284 of the UDC Act provides: "[t]his act, being necessary for the welfare of
the state and its inhabitants, shall be liberally construed so as to effectuate its purposes."
Consistent with the legislative mandate of the UDC Act, courts have given liberal
interpretation to its tax exemption provisions. For example, in Wein v. Beame, 43 N.Y.2d 326, the
New York Court of Appeals upheld an exemption from real property taxes as applied to the
Commodore Hotel property in Manhattan. The hotel had been sold to ESDC for one dollar, then
leased back to the seller for 99 years. Arguments that ESDC had no real interest in the property, and
was a "straw man" brought into the project solely to provide a tax exemption, were rejected. The
court stated:
It is not for us to speculate as to the motive for UDC'S participation, nor to
delineate the amount of active participation which is necessary to denominate a
particular project a UDC project. Here, UDC will be the owner of the building, and
it is enough that UDC has to combat otherwise inevitable urban blight, and which is
thus clearly in accordance with the benign purposes of the Legislature in creating
UDC. . . . (emphasis added)

-7­
TSB-A-00(3)R
Mortgage Recording Tax
May 31, 2000

An apparent inconsistency exists between the Tax Law and the UDC Act. Where a conflict
exists between two enactments relating to the same subject matter, the latter specific enactment
governs the earlier general enactment. (Williamsburgh Power Plant Corp. v. City of New York, 255
App Div 214, affd 280 NY 551 and New York State Urban Development Corp. supra.)
As the pertinent provisions of section 252 of the Tax Law as cited previously in this opinion
were enacted in 1909, they must yield to the exemption provisions contained in the law creating
UDC which were enacted in 1968.
Furthermore, the UDC Act gives Petitioner the power to make mortgage loans, secured by
first mortgage liens. Having this power implies that Petitioner may also perform the activity of
recording mortgages. Section 253 of the Tax Law imposes the mortgage recording tax on the
exercise of the privilege of recording a mortgage not on the mortgage itself, as property. (Franklin
Society for Home Building and Savings v. Bennett, 282 NY 79; Matter of Silberblatt, Inc. v. Tax
Comm, 5 NY2d 635; and One Park Place Associates, and New York State Urban Development
Corp. supra.)
Also, in an informal opinion of the Attorney General, dated March 7, 1956, it was stated that:
[i]t should be noted that section 257 of Article 11 of the New York State Tax
Law is silent as to which party to the mortgage shall pay the tax. Under its terms the
taxes shall be payable on the recording of each loan subject to tax so that the party
who records is the one upon whom the tax is imposed . . . . (1956 Atty Gen [Inf
Opns] 27, at 28.)
Furthermore, Section 6272 of the UDC Act, specifically provides that Petitioner or its
subsidiaries shall not be "required to pay taxes of any kind" and Petitioner, its subsidiaries, projects,
and moneys "shall at all times be free from taxation of every kind by the state and by the
municipalities and all other political subdivisions of the state."
Also, Section 255 of the Tax Law provides, in pertinent part, as follows:
[i]f subsequent to the recording of a mortgage on which all taxes, if any,
accrued under this article have been paid, a supplemental instrument or mortgage is
recorded for the purpose of correcting or perfecting any recorded mortgage, or
pursuant to some provision or covenant therein, or an additional mortgage is recorded
imposing the lien thereof upon property not originally covered by or not described
in such recorded primary mortgage for the purpose of securing the principal
indebtedness which is or under any contingency may be secured by such recorded
primary mortgage, such additional instrument or mortgage shall not be subject to
taxation under this article, unless it creates or secures a new or further indebtedness

-8­
TSB-A-00(3)R
Mortgage Recording Tax
May 31, 2000

or obligation other than the principal indebtedness or obligation secured by or which
under any contingency may be secured by the recorded primary mortgage. . . .
Also, Section 250 of the Tax Law provides that "[a] contract or agreement by which the
indebtedness secured by any mortgage is increased or added to, shall be deemed a mortgage of real
property for the purpose of this article, and shall be taxable as such upon the amount of such increase
or additions."
In addition, once a mortgage has been given and recorded, the recorded primary mortgage
may be changed by a supplemental mortgage and, under the provisions noted above, no additional
recording tax will be due as long as the amount secured remains the same. (City of New York v.
State Tax Commission, 130 AD2d 890, 891 and New York State Urban Development Corp. supra.)
Conclusions
Based on the foregoing, it is concluded that the mortgage recording tax is not due upon the
recording of any mortgage recorded in connection with the Project, if ESDC or QWDC is named
mortgagee (whether as trustee, agent, nominee or otherwise) and ESDC or QWDC presents the
mortgage for recording.
Also, to the extent that the mortgage continues to secure the same principal debt or
obligation, the recording of any assignment, supplement, modification or amendment of a mortgage
described in the preceding paragraph is exempt from the mortgage recording tax, either because such
action does not create a new mortgage subject to tax under section 253 of the Tax Law, or because
the instrument constitutes a "supplemental mortgage" under Section 255 of the Tax Law. (New York
State Urban Development Corp. supra.) To the extent that a new or further indebtedness were
secured in conjunction with the recording of any assignment, supplement, modification or
amendment of such mortgage, mortgage recording tax would be imposed only with respect to any
new or further indebtedness, and then only if mortgage recording tax would otherwise have been
required to be paid on such new or further indebtedness.

DATED: May 31, 2000

NOTE:

/s/
John W. Bartlett
Deputy Director
Technical Services Division

The opinions expressed in Advisory Opinions are
limited to the facts set forth therein.