Anderson v. City of New York

176 Misc. 896, 30 N.Y.S.2d 302, 1939 N.Y. Misc. LEXIS 2822
CourtNew York Supreme Court
DecidedSeptember 26, 1939
StatusPublished
Cited by2 cases

This text of 176 Misc. 896 (Anderson v. City of New York) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering New York Supreme Court primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Anderson v. City of New York, 176 Misc. 896, 30 N.Y.S.2d 302, 1939 N.Y. Misc. LEXIS 2822 (N.Y. Super. Ct. 1939).

Opinion

Mr. Justice Frankenthaler, who wrote the opinion in the above cases (172 Misc. 370), to the effect that the plaintiffs, commercial photographers and illustrators, were not subject to the New York city sales tax, died before signing formal decisions.

Mr. Justice Rosenman denied plaintiffs’ motion for judgment on Mr. Justice Frankenthaler’s opinion and granted defendants’ motion setting the cases down for retrial. Mr. Justice Rosenman in his decision (N. Y. L. J. Mar. 18, 1940, p. 1076) stated: “ The memorandum initialed by the late Justice Frankenthaler was a legal opinion and not a decision.” The order of Mr. Justice Rosenman was affirmed by the Appellate Division (260 App. Div. 1000).

Mr. Justice Rosenman on submission of the above cases to him for determination on the original records, pursuant to designation by an order of the Appellate Division, rendered ■ a decision and judgment holding the plaintiffs subject to the New York city sales tax. (N. Y. L. J. June 5,1941, p. 2528.) His first three conclusions of law are as follows:

[897]*897“ First. The plaintiff transfers title to the photographs he produces to his customers, and by reason thereof, is subject to the New York City Sales Tax Laws upon such transactions.

Second. The plaintiff transfers possession of the photographs he produces to his customers, and by reason thereof, is subject to the New York City Sales Tax Laws upon such transactions.

Third. The plaintiff transfers possession of the photographs he produces to his customers, together with a license to use or consume the same, and by reason thereof, is subject to the New York City Sales Tax Laws upon such transactions.”

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

Related

Rosenshein v. Guillen
92 Misc. 2d 217 (New York Supreme Court, 1977)
Pagano, Inc. v. City of New York
267 A.D. 980 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1944)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
176 Misc. 896, 30 N.Y.S.2d 302, 1939 N.Y. Misc. LEXIS 2822, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/anderson-v-city-of-new-york-nysupct-1939.