New York Consolidated Laws

N.Y. Tax Law § 486 (2026)

Exceptions

✓ current as of May 2026

Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section NY-LEGnysenate.gov Justiaon Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar

§ 486. Exceptions. (a) The provisions of this article shall not apply
to sales made:
  1. As an isolated transaction and not the usual course of business; or
  2. Where cigarettes are advertised, offered for sale, or sold by any
fiduciary or other officer acting under the order or direction of any
court.
  (b) 1. Any retail dealer may advertise, offer to sell, or sell
cigarettes at a price made in good faith to meet the price of a
competitor who is selling the same article at cost to him as a retail
dealer. Any agent or wholesale dealer may advertise, offer to sell or
sell cigarettes at a price made in good faith to meet the price of a
competitor who is rendering the same type of services and is selling the
same article at cost to him as an agent or as a wholesale dealer, as the
case may be.  The price of cigarettes advertised, offered for sale, or
sold under the exceptions specified in subdivision (a) of this section
shall not be considered the price of a competitor and shall not be used
as a basis for establishing prices below cost, nor shall the price
established at a bankruptcy sale be considered the price of a competitor
within the purview of this section.
  2. In the absence of proof of the price of a competitor, the cost of
the retail dealer or the cost of the agent or wholesale dealer, as the
case may be, which is established pursuant to section four hundred
eighty-three of this article, may be deemed the price of a competitor
within the meaning of this section.
  (c) In establishing the cost of cigarettes of the retail dealer, agent
or wholesale dealer, the invoice cost of said cigarettes purchase at a
forced bankruptcy, or closeout sale, or other sale outside of the
ordinary channels of trade, may not be used as a basis for justifying a
price lower than one based upon the replacement cost of the cigarettes
to the retail dealer, agent or wholesale dealer in the quantity last
purchased through the ordinary channels of trade.

Notes of Decisions

Cited in 4 cases (2 in the last 5 years), 2019–2025 · leading case: Amsterdam Tobacco Co., Inc. v. Harold Levinson Assoc., LLC, 2022 NY Slip Op 00390 (N.Y. App. Div. 2022).

Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment

Amsterdam Tobacco Co., Inc. v. Harold Levinson Assoc., LLC, 2022 NY Slip Op 00390 (N.Y. App. Div. 2022). · cites it 4× “The Supreme Court granted HLA's motion, determining that (1) rebates which result in prices lower than legal minimums do not violate the CMSA, and (2) HLA offered the rebates in good faith to compete with competitors, thus satisfying the good faith "meeting competition"…”

Amsterdam Tobacco Co., Inc. v. Harold Levinson Assoc., LLC, 2025 NY Slip Op 04532 (N.Y. App. Div. 2025). · cites it 2× “Thereafter, in answering an amended complaint, HLA interposed affirmative defenses, including that it did not violate the CMSA because it priced its cigarettes in good faith to meet its competitors' prices ( see Tax Law § 486[b][1]). The plaintiffs moved pursuant to CPLR 3211(b)…”

Mountain Candy & Cigar Co., Inc. v. Core-Mark Midcontinent, Inc. (E.D.N.Y 2019). “N.Y. Tax Law § 486 . Section 484, however, which gives rise to plaintiffs’ claim for relief and sets forth the elements of a violation of the CMSA, does not reference sales made “other than” in good faith.”

Donohue Candy & Tobacco Co., Inc. v. Consum. Prod. Distributors, Inc. (E.D.N.Y 2019). “Tax. Law § 486 (b)(1).) Second, the State court determined HLA’s alleged offers of rebates did not constitute a “per se violation” of the CMSA.”

Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.