Bankers Trust Company v. State Tax Commission

• Decision Date: 13 February 1974
• Court: New York Court of Appeals Court of Appeals
• Parties: , 309 N.E.2d 134 In the Matter of BANKERS TRUST COMPANY, Appellant, v. STATE TAX COMMISSION, Respondent. (And Four Other Proceedings.) In the Matter of BANKERS TRUST COMPANY, Appellant, v. FINANCE ADMINISTRATION OF the CITY OF NEW YORK et al., Respondents.

Page 735

353 N.Y.S.2d 735

33 N.Y.2d 968, 309 N.E.2d 134

In the Matter of BANKERS TRUST COMPANY, Appellant, v. STATE TAX COMMISSION, Respondent. (And Four Other Proceedings.)

In the Matter of BANKERS TRUST COMPANY, Appellant, v. FINANCE ADMINISTRATION OF the CITY OF NEW YORK et al., Respondents.

Court of Appeals of New York.

Feb. 13, 1974.

David Sachs, P. B. Konrad Knake and Richard A. Hoppe, New York City, for appellants.

Louis J. Lefkowitz, Atty. Gen. (Robert W. Bush and Ruth Kessler Toch, Albany, of counsel), for State Tax Commission, respondent.

Norman Redlich, Corp. Counsel, New York City (Samuel J. Warms, Isaac C. Donner and Raymond Herzog, Asst. Corp. Counsel, New York City, of counsel), for Finance Administration of the City of New York and others, respondents.

MEMORANDUM:

The orders of the Appellate Division, 40 A.D.2d 1057, 339 N.Y.S.2d 659, 40 A.D.2d 793, 337 N.Y.S.2d 493 should be affirmed, with costs. The court affirms on the authority of Matter of Bank of Manhattan Co. (Murphy), 293 N.Y. 515, 58 N.E.2d 713. While petitioner Banks make a cogent argument that section 4 of article XVI of the State Constitution should be reviewed in the light of its legislative history at the 1938 Constitutional Convention, the argument is insufficient to move the court to disregard principles of Stare decisis. The Bank of Manhattan case was decided in 1944. An effort in the 1967 Constitutional Convention to amend the Constitution and apparently to avoid the result in the Bank of Manhattan case was of course rejected along with the entire proposed Constitution (see XI Proceedings of New York State Constitutional Convention--1967--Doc. No. 54, p. 16; Doc. No. 60, art. X, § 4 of the proposed Constitution, p. 31). Since the case was decided the legislation providing for the State sales tax, and like sales taxes for the benefits of subdivisions of the State (L.1965, ch. 93), was enacted obviously in reliance on the ruling of the Bank of Manhattan case. It is notable, too, that recent Federal legislation has eliminated the problem for the future.

BREITEL, C.J., and JASEN, GABRIELLI, JONES, WACHTLER, SAMUEL RABIN and STEVENS, JJ., concur in memorandum.

In each case: Order affirmed.