Opinion · New York Court of Appeals

Golden v. Tully

Golden v. Tully, 58 N.Y.2d 1047 (New York Court of Appeals 1983)

Type
Opinion
Court
New York Court of Appeals
Jurisdiction
New York
Date
1983-03-29
Topic
litigation

OPINION OF THE COURT Memorandum. The judgment of the Appellate Division should be affirmed, with costs. *1049In response to the taxpayers’ demand for a bill of particulars, it was admitted that petitioners’ nonresidence in “New York State was determinative of the disallowance of said moving expenses.” No other rationale was then proffered to justify the discrepancy in treating residents and nonresidents. Consequently, it must be concluded that, in the present matter, respondent’s determination unconstitutionally discriminated against the nonresident taxpayers (see US Const, art IV, § 2, cl 1). Chief Judge Cooke and. Judges Jasen, Jones, Wachtler, Fuchsberg, Meyer and Simons concur.

Citator

UpLaw has not yet analyzed Golden v. Tully. The absence of a flag is not a finding that it is good law.

Cited by
7 opinions
MATTER OF GOLDEN v. TULLY,58 N.Y.2d 1047(1983)
In the Matter of MICHAEL J. GOLDEN et al., Respondents, v. JAMES H. TULLY,
JR., et al., Constituting the New York State Tax Commission, Appellants.
Court of Appeals of the State of New York.
Argued February 7, 1983
Decided March 29, 1983
Appeal from the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court in the Third Judicial Department.Page 1048
Robert Abrams, Attorney-General(Francis V. DowandPeterH. Schiffof counsel), for appellants.Michael J. GoldenandCarol A. Golden,respondentsprose.
MEMORANDUM.

The judgment of the Appellate Division should be affirmed, with costs.Page 1049

In response to the taxpayers' demand for a bill of particulars, it was admitted that petitioners' nonresidence in "New York State was determinative of the disallowance of said moving expenses." No other rationale was then proffered to justify the discrepancy in treating residents and nonresidents. Consequently, it must be concluded that, in the present matter, respondent's determination unconstitutionally discriminated against the nonresident taxpayers (see US Const, art IV, § 2, cl 1).

Chief Judge COOKE and Judges JASEN, JONES, WACHTLER, FUCHSBERG, MEYER and SIMONS concur.

Judgment affirmed, with costs, in a memorandum.