green
Positive treatment
5.0 score
Treatment trajectory · 1996 → 2026 · click a year to view as-of
1996
2011
2026
Top citers, strongest first. 14 distinct citers.
discussed
Cited "see"
Matter of HDV Manhattan, LLC v. Tax Appeals Trib. of The State of New York
In view of the foregoing, we find that the Tribunal rationally determined that the purchase of scrip to pay for a private dance constituted an admission charge within the meaning of Tax Law § 1105 (f) (1) (see Tax Law § 1101 [d] [2]; see generally Matter of 1605 Book Ctr. v Tax Appeals Trib. of State of N.Y., 83 NY2d 240, 245 [1994], cert denied 513 US 811 [1994]; compare Fairland Amusements v State Tax Commn., 66 NY2d 932, 934-935 [1985], revg 110 AD2d 952 [1985]).
discussed
Cited "see"
Ryder v. City of New York
The court’s function in interpreting a statute is to “attempt to effectuate the intent of the Legislature, and where the statutory language is clear and unambiguous, the court should construe it so as to give effect to the plain meaning of the words used” (Matter of Elgut v County of Suffolk, 1 AD3d 512 , 513 [2003] [internal quotation marks omitted]; see Matter of 1605 Book Ctr. v Tax Appeals Trib. of State of N.Y., 83 NY2d 240, 244 [1994], cert denied 513 US 811 [1994]).
discussed
Cited "see"
Cipo v. Blerkom
Moreover, the Surrogate’s Court has jurisdiction over this matter because it affects a lifetime trust (see SCPA 209 [6]; see generally Matter of 1605 Book Ctr. v Tax Appeals Trib. of State of N.Y., 83 NY2d 240, 244 [1994], cert denied 513 US 811 [1994]; Ragucci v Professional Constr.
discussed
Cited "see"
Village of Webster v. Town of Webster
That chapter includes the express authorization of the board to acquire ownership of existing pipes under public highways (see, Village Law § 11-1110), but does not authorize ownership of the privately installed supply connections of customers outside the Village limits. “[WJhere a statute describes the particular situations in which it is to apply, ‘an irrefutable inference must be drawn that what is omitted or not included was intended to be omitted and excluded’ ” (Golden v Koch, 49 NY2d 690, 694 , quoting McKinney’s Cons Laws of NY, Book 1, Statutes § 240; see, Matter of 1605 B…
discussed
Cited "see"
In Re Christie
See Peters v. Delaware River Port Authority of Pennsylvania and New Jersey (“DRPA”), 16 F.3d 1346, 1350 (3d Cir.1994), cert. denied, 513 U.S. 811 , 115 S.Ct. 62 , 130 L.Ed.2d 20 (1994) (DRPA not entitled to Eleventh Amendment immunity from federal civil rights claim because the entity was financially self-sustaining and any judgment would not be satisfied by the state treasury); Fitchik v. New Jersey Transit Rail Operations, Inc., 873 F.2d 655, 660-61 (3d Cir.1989) (same in context of mass tort claim against transit corporation); e.g.
discussed
Cited "see"
City of New York v. New York State Tax Appeals Tribunal
Having considered and rejected all remaining contentions and mindful that "taxing statutes, when ambiguous and doubtful, should be construed liberally in favor of the taxpayer” (Matter of City of New York v Procaccino, supra, at 595 ; see, Matter of 1605 Book Ctr. v Tax Appeals Tribunal, 83 NY2d 240 , cert denied 513 US 811 ), we confirm the Tribunal’s determination.
cited
Cited "see"
Crisp v. United States
See CHoPP Computer Corp. v. United States, 5 F.3d 1344, 1347 (9th Cir.1993), cert. denied, 513 U.S. 811 , 115 S.Ct. 63 , 130 L.Ed.2d 20 (1994).
discussed
Cited "see"
Crisp v. United States
See CHoPP Computer Corp. v. United States, 5 F.3d 1344, 1347 (9th Cir.1993), cert. denied, 513 U.S. 811 , 115 S.Ct. 63 , 130 L.Ed.2d 20 (1994). *973 The Crisps will be given until March 5,1997, to submit supplemental authority to show the Court has jurisdiction over their conversion-type claim.
discussed
Cited "see"
Brooklyn Bridge Park Coalition v. Port Authority of New York & New Jersey
See Atlantic Legal Found, v. Eastman Kodak Co., 12 F.3d 353, 358 (2d Cir.1994) (“EPA’s reasonable interpretations of [Clean Water] Act are due deferential treatment in the courts”), cert. denied, 513 U.S. 811 , 115 *395 S.Ct. 62, 130 L.Ed.2d 19 (1994); accord Good Samaritan Hosp.
discussed
Cited "see"
Fusco v. Medeiros
See Durr v. Intercounty Title Co. of Illinois, 14 F.3d 1183, 1188 (7th Cir.) (upholding Rule 11 sanctions against attorney who “sued on behalf of a class of plaintiffs that did not exist”), cert. denied, 513 U.S. 811 , 115 S.Ct. 63 , 130 L.Ed.2d 20 (1994). 93 . 781 F.Supp. at 124 . 94 .
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
Lewis v. West Virginia Supreme Court of Appeals
See, e.g., Landers Seed Co., Inc. v. Champaign Nat’l Bank, 15 F.3d 729, 731-32 (7th Cir.1994), cert. denied, 513 U.S. 811 , 115 S.Ct. 62 , 130 L.Ed.2d 20 (1994) (suit to enjoin Illinois Supreme Court from violating Due Process Clause barred by Eleventh Amendment); Robinson v. Court of Common Pleas of Phila.
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
Lewis v. West Virginia Supreme Court of Appeals
See, e.g., Landers Seed Co., Inc. v. Champaign Nat’l Bank, 15 F.3d 729, 731-32 (7th Cir.1994), cert. denied 513 U.S. 811 , 115 S.Ct. 62 , 130 L.Ed.2d 20 (suit to enjoin Illinois Supreme Court from violating Due Process Clause barred by 11th Amendment); Robinson v. Court of Common Pleas of Phila.
cited
Cited "see, e.g."
Tiegs v. Watts
See also Atlantic States Legal Found., Inc. v. Eastman Kodak Co., 12 F.3d 353, 357 (2d Cir. 1993), as amended (1994), cert. denied, 513 U.S. 811 , 115 S. Ct. 62 , 130 L.
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
Tiegs v. Watts
See also Atlantic States Legal Found., Inc. v. Eastman Kodak Co., 12 F.3d 353, 357 (2d Cir. 1993), as amended (Feb. 03, 1994), cert. denied, 513 U.S. 811 , 115 S.Ct. 62 , 130 L.Ed.2d 19 (1994), applying broadly the "shield provision" of the Clean Water Act, 33 U.S.C. § 1342 (k) and holding "[o]nce within the NPDES or SPDES scheme ... polluters may discharge pollutants not specifically listed in their permits so long as they comply with the appropriate reporting requirements and abide by any new limitations when imposed on such pollutants." Id. at 357.
1605 Book Center, Inc.
v.
Tax Appeals Tribunal of New York
v.
Tax Appeals Tribunal of New York
No. 93-1835.
Supreme Court of the United States.
Oct 3, 1994.
513 U.S. 811
Published
Ct. App. N. Y. Certiorari denied.