Dime Savings Bank v. State

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Dime Savings Bank v. State

225 A.D.2d 581, 639 N.Y.2d 102, 639 N.Y.S.2d 102, 1996 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 2134

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

DecidedMarch 11, 1996

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 225 A.D.2d 581 (Dime Savings Bank v. State) 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

Dime Savings Bank v. State, 225 A.D.2d 581, 639 N.Y.2d 102, 639 N.Y.S.2d 102, 1996 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 2134 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1996).

Pincite

Opinion

[582]*582In our opinion, the plaintiff is not entitled to a refund of the taxes it paid pursuant to New York’s special mortgage recording tax statute (see, Tax Law § 253 [1-a] [a]). This statute, considered apart from its severable anti-pass-through provision, is fully consistent with Federal law. It was only the anti-pass-through provision which was preempted by Federal regulation (see, Dime Sav. Bank v State of New York, 174 AD2d 173); the tax itself was not. It is clear that the Legislature intended that the tax be imposed irrespective of the efficacy of the anti-pass-through provision (see, Exxon Corp. v Eagerton, 462 US 176, 186, n 6, on remand sub nom. Union Oil Co. v Eagerton, 440 So 2d 1031 [Ala]; cf., Shell Oil Co. v New York State Tax Commn., 91 AD2d 81). Bracken, J. P., Rosenblatt, Sullivan and Hart, JJ., concur.

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

[582]*582In our opinion, the plaintiff is not entitled to a refund of the taxes it paid pursuant to New York’s special mortgage recording tax statute (see, Tax Law § 253 [1-a] [a]). This statute, considered apart from its severable anti-pass-through provision, is fully consistent with Federal law. It was only the anti-pass-through provision which was preempted by Federal regulation (see, Dime Sav. Bank v State of New York, 174 AD2d 173); the tax itself was not. It is clear that the Legislature intended that the tax be imposed irrespective of the efficacy of the anti-pass-through provision (see, Exxon Corp. v Eagerton, 462 US 176, 186, n 6, on remand sub nom. Union Oil Co. v Eagerton, 440 So 2d 1031 [Ala]; cf., Shell Oil Co. v New York State Tax Commn., 91 AD2d 81). Bracken, J. P., Rosenblatt, Sullivan and Hart, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

225 A.D.2d 581, 639 N.Y.2d 102, 639 N.Y.S.2d 102, 1996 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 2134, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/dime-savings-bank-v-state-nyappdiv-1996.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack