Opinion
February 26, 1996
Appeal from the Supreme Court, Suffolk County (Newmark, J.).
Ordered that the order is affirmed insofar as appealed from, with one bill of costs.
Contrary to the appellants' contention, the Supreme Court properly dismissed the amended complaint for failure to state a cause of action (see, CPLR 3211 [a] [7]). The plaintiffs alleged, inter alia, that Tax Law § 1202- o violates the Gift and Loan Clause of the New York Constitution (see, N.Y. Const, art VIII, § 1). However, they failed to demonstrate that the challenged tax has as its primary object a private benefit (Murphy v. Erie County, 28 N.Y.2d 80, 88; Denihan Enters. v O'Dwyer, 302 N.Y. 451, 458). Further, the challenged tax does not violate the plaintiffs' due process rights (see, N.Y. Const, art I, § 6; US Const, 14th Amend, § 1) because it is rationally related to a legitimate State interest (see, Treyball v. Clark, 65 N.Y.2d 589, 590).
Finally, the contract between the defendants does not impermissibly delegate governmental authority (see, 42 Kew Gardens Rd. Assocs. v. Tyburski, 70 N.Y.2d 325, 332; Suffolk County Code § C2-8 [B]; § C3-4). Bracken, J.P., Balletta, Thompson and Hart, JJ., concur.