Citibank, N. A. v. City of New York

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Citibank, N. A. v. City of New York

55 A.D.2d 531, 389 N.Y.S.2d 547, 1976 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 15176

CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York

DecidedDecember 6, 1976

StatusPublished

This text of 55 A.D.2d 531 (Citibank, N. A. v. City of New York) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Citibank, N. A. v. City of New York, 55 A.D.2d 531, 389 N.Y.S.2d 547, 1976 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 15176 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1976).

Pincite

Opinion

Determinations of respondents, dated December 8, 1975 and March 29, 1976, respectively, confirmed and the petitions dismissed. Respondents shall recover of petitioners $60 costs and disbursements of this proceeding. Concur —Kupferman, J. P., Murphy, Lupiano and Nunez, JJ.; Silverman, J., dissents in the following memorandum: In my view, as a matter of law the amendatory legislation of 1970 remained "state legislation in effect prior to the enactment” of the 1969 amendment of section 5219 of the United States Revised Statutes (US Code, tit 12, § 548), and did not constitute that "affirmative action of the State Legislature after the enactment of this Act,” required by Public Law No. 91-156 (83 US Stat 434), as amended by Public Law No. 92-213 (85 US Stat 775). Accordingly, I would annul the determination of the City Finance Administration imposing the New York City commercial rent and occupancy tax on petitioners national banks for the period prior to January 1, 1973.

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

Determinations of respondents, dated December 8, 1975 and March 29, 1976, respectively, confirmed and the petitions dismissed. Respondents shall recover of petitioners $60 costs and disbursements of this proceeding. Concur —Kupferman, J. P., Murphy, Lupiano and Nunez, JJ.; Silverman, J., dissents in the following memorandum: In my view, as a matter of law the amendatory legislation of 1970 remained "state legislation in effect prior to the enactment” of the 1969 amendment of section 5219 of the United States Revised Statutes (US Code, tit 12, § 548), and did not constitute that "affirmative action of the State Legislature after the enactment of this Act,” required by Public Law No. 91-156 (83 US Stat 434), as amended by Public Law No. 92-213 (85 US Stat 775). Accordingly, I would annul the determination of the City Finance Administration imposing the New York City commercial rent and occupancy tax on petitioners national banks for the period prior to January 1, 1973.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

55 A.D.2d 531, 389 N.Y.S.2d 547, 1976 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 15176, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/citibank-n-a-v-city-of-new-york-nyappdiv-1976.