Golden v. Tully

449 N.E.2d 406, 58 N.Y.2d 1047, 462 N.Y.S.2d 626, 1983 N.Y. LEXIS 2984
New York Court of Appeals·Decided March 29, 1983·Published·Cited by 7 cases

Opinion

OPINION OF THE COURT

Memorandum.

The judgment of the Appellate Division should be affirmed, with costs.

[1049] In response to the taxpayers’ demand for a bill of particulars, it was admitted that petitioners’ nonresidence in “New York State was determinative of the disallowance of said moving expenses.” No other rationale was then proffered to justify the discrepancy in treating residents and nonresidents. Consequently, it must be concluded that, in the present matter, respondent’s determination unconstitutionally discriminated against the nonresident taxpayers (see US Const, art IV, § 2, cl 1).

Chief Judge Cooke and. Judges Jasen, Jones, Wachtler, Fuchsberg, Meyer and Simons concur.

Judgment affirmed, with costs, in a memorandum.

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

Golden v. Tully, 449 N.E.2d 406, 58 N.Y.2d 1047, 462 N.Y.S.2d 626, 1983 N.Y. LEXIS 2984 (N.Y. 1983).

449 N.E.2d 406 (Golden v. Tully) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Lunding v. New York Tax Appeals Tribunal
522 U.S. 287 (Supreme Court, 1998)
Lunding v. Tax Appeals Tribunal
218 A.D.2d 268 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1996)
Tao v. New York State Tax Commission
125 A.D.2d 879 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1986)
Del-Met Corp. v. State Tax Commission
102 A.D.2d 312 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1984)
Friedsam v. State Tax Commission
98 A.D.2d 26 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1983)