From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Matter of City of New York v. Tully

Court of Appeals of the State of New York
Feb 16, 1982
434 N.E.2d 250 (N.Y. 1982)

Opinion

Argued January 11, 1982

Decided February 16, 1982

Appeal from the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court in the Third Judicial Department.

Martin B. Cowan and Wayne R. Lehrhaupt for appellant. Frederick A.O. Schwarz, Jr., Corporation Counsel ( Arnold Fox and Gale Zareko of counsel), for City of New York, respondent.

Robert Abrams, Attorney-General ( Francis V. Dow and Shirley Adelson Siegel of counsel), for State Tax Commission, respondent.


MEMORANDUM.

The judgment of the Appellate Division should be reversed, with costs, and the determination of the State Tax Commission is reinstated.

We find no error in the determination of the State Tax Commission that the mortgage agreement in question was a supplemental mortgage within the purview of section 255 of the Tax Law and did not create a new or further indebtedness or obligation. The commission found that the agreement did not change the creditor, the maturity or interest rate, but instead it changed only the collateral. Hence, no additional mortgage tax was due upon the recording of this agreement. It is significant that the release of the leasehold from the lien did not occur before the fee was added to the security for the principal indebtedness. Additionally, we note that respondent taxpayer is not entitled to interest on its refund from the time of payment of the tax ( Matter of Brodsky v Murphy, 25 N.Y.2d 518).

Chief Judge COOKE and Judges GABRIELLI, JONES, WACHTLER, FUCHSBERG and MEYER concur in a memorandum; Judge JASEN taking no part.

Judgment reversed, etc.


Summaries of

Matter of City of New York v. Tully

Court of Appeals of the State of New York
Feb 16, 1982
434 N.E.2d 250 (N.Y. 1982)
Case details for

Matter of City of New York v. Tully

Case Details

Full title:In the Matter of the CITY OF NEW YORK, Respondent, v. JAMES H. TULLY et…

Court:Court of Appeals of the State of New York

Date published: Feb 16, 1982

Citations

434 N.E.2d 250 (N.Y. 1982)
434 N.E.2d 250
449 N.Y.S.2d 181

Citing Cases

Waldorf-Astoria v. State Tax

rt, held, "[f]inally, on that portion of the taxes, refund of which is not barred by the Statute of…

Matter of Citibank v. State Tax Commission

Consequently, we conclude that the Tax Commission properly determined that the transaction was subject to the…