6 E. 112th Street Corp. v. State Tax Commission

New York Court of Appeals

6 E. 112th Street Corp. v. State Tax Commission

168 N.E.2d 839, 8 N.Y.2d 930, 204 N.Y.S.2d 169, 1960 N.Y. LEXIS 1152

New York Court of Appeals·Decided June 10, 1960·Published·Cited by 1 cases

Opinion

Order affirmed, with costs; no opinion.

Concur: Chief Judge Desmond and Judges Dye, Van Voorhis and Foster. Judges Fuld, Froessel and Burke dissent and vote to reverse upon the ground that, by their renting of a few furnished apartments without accompanying services of any kind, petitioners did not thereby engage in any other business nor cease to be “ wholly engaged ’ ’ in the business of real estate and ‘ in holding title to real estate for itself ’ ’, within the meaning of section 182 of the Tax Law and, accordingly, the commission’s reclassification of petitioners is arbitrary and unreasonable.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Order affirmed, with costs; no opinion.

Concur: Chief Judge Desmond and Judges Dye, Van Voorhis and Foster. Judges Fuld, Froessel and Burke dissent and vote to reverse upon the ground that, by their renting of a few furnished apartments without accompanying services of any kind, petitioners did not thereby engage in any other business nor cease to be “ wholly engaged ’ ’ in the business of real estate and ‘ in holding title to real estate for itself ’ ’, within the meaning of section 182 of the Tax Law and, accordingly, the commission’s reclassification of petitioners is arbitrary and unreasonable.

6 E. 112th Street Corp. v. State Tax Commission, 168 N.E.2d 839, 8 N.Y.2d 930, 204 N.Y.S.2d 169, 1960 N.Y. LEXIS 1152 (N.Y. 1960).

Pincite

168 N.E.2d 839 (6 E. 112th Street Corp. v. State Tax Commission) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related