Island Recycling Corp. v. New York State Department of Taxation & Finance

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Island Recycling Corp. v. New York State Department of Taxation & Finance

34 A.D.3d 739, 823 N.Y.S.2d 909

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

DecidedNovember 28, 2006

StatusPublished

This text of 34 A.D.3d 739 (Island Recycling Corp. v. New York State Department of Taxation & Finance) 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

Island Recycling Corp. v. New York State Department of Taxation & Finance, 34 A.D.3d 739, 823 N.Y.S.2d 909 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2006).

Pincite

Opinion

In an action, inter alia, for a judgment declaring that Tax Law § 1105 (c) (5) is unconstitutional as applied to the plaintiffs, the plaintiffs appeal from an order and judgment (one paper) of the Supreme Court, Suffolk County (Cohalan, J.), entered June 3, 2005, which, among other things, granted the defendants’ cross motion for summary judgment declaring that Tax Law § 1105 (c) (5) and 20 NYCRR 527.7 (a) are not unconstitutional as applied to the plaintiffs.

Ordered that the order and judgment is affirmed, with costs.

Despite the plaintiffs’ claims, the defendants’ interpretation of Tax Law § 1105 (c) (5) was neither irrational nor unreasonable (see Matter of Chesterfield Assoc. v New York State Dept. of Labor, 4 NY3d 597, 605 [2005]; Matter of Cecos Intl. v State Tax Commn., 71 NY2d 934 [1988]; Matter of Rochester Gas & Elec. Corp. v New York State Tax Commn., 71 NY2d 931 [1988]). Furthermore, there is no merit to the plaintiffs’ claim that the defendants’ determination failed to adhere to prior agency precedent (see 20 NYCRR 2375.11), or to their claim that the tax was not fairly apportioned (see Oklahoma Tax Comm’n v Jefferson Lines, Inc., 514 US 175 [1995]; Matter of CWM Chem. Serv., 2003 NY Tax LEXIS 307 [DTA No. 818757]).

The plaintiffs’ remaining contentions either are without merit or are not properly before this Court. Adams, J.E, Rivera, Skelos and Lifson, JJ., concur.

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

In an action, inter alia, for a judgment declaring that Tax Law § 1105 (c) (5) is unconstitutional as applied to the plaintiffs, the plaintiffs appeal from an order and judgment (one paper) of the Supreme Court, Suffolk County (Cohalan, J.), entered June 3, 2005, which, among other things, granted the defendants’ cross motion for summary judgment declaring that Tax Law § 1105 (c) (5) and 20 NYCRR 527.7 (a) are not unconstitutional as applied to the plaintiffs.

Ordered that the order and judgment is affirmed, with costs.

Despite the plaintiffs’ claims, the defendants’ interpretation of Tax Law § 1105 (c) (5) was neither irrational nor unreasonable (see Matter of Chesterfield Assoc. v New York State Dept. of Labor, 4 NY3d 597, 605 [2005]; Matter of Cecos Intl. v State Tax Commn., 71 NY2d 934 [1988]; Matter of Rochester Gas & Elec. Corp. v New York State Tax Commn., 71 NY2d 931 [1988]). Furthermore, there is no merit to the plaintiffs’ claim that the defendants’ determination failed to adhere to prior agency precedent (see 20 NYCRR 2375.11), or to their claim that the tax was not fairly apportioned (see Oklahoma Tax Comm’n v Jefferson Lines, Inc., 514 US 175 [1995]; Matter of CWM Chem. Serv., 2003 NY Tax LEXIS 307 [DTA No. 818757]).

The plaintiffs’ remaining contentions either are without merit or are not properly before this Court. Adams, J.E, Rivera, Skelos and Lifson, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

34 A.D.3d 739, 823 N.Y.S.2d 909, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/island-recycling-corp-v-new-york-state-department-of-taxation-finance-nyappdiv-2006.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack