Cibro Petroleum Products, Inc. v. Chu
| Decision Date | 20 March 1986 |
| Citation | 67 N.Y.2d 806,492 N.E.2d 394,501 N.Y.S.2d 321 |
| Parties | , 492 N.E.2d 394 CIBRO PETROLEUM PRODUCTS, INC., Appellant, v. Roderick G.W. CHU, as Commissioner of the New York State Department of Taxation and Finance and as President of the New York State Tax Commission, Respondent. |
| Court | New York Court of Appeals Court of Appeals |
The order of the Appellate Division, 111 A.D.2d 962, 490 N.Y.S.2d 59, should be affirmed, with costs, for the reasons stated in the memorandum at the Appellate Division. We add that the legislative history establishes that the tax was intended to "apply to all competing petroleum businesses, and, with the exception of residential fuel and petrochemical feedstocks, to virtually all petroleum sold in the State" (Memorandum of Assembly Rules Committee, 1983 N.Y.Legis.Ann., at 173; see, Governor's Program Bill Memorandum, at 4) and, therefore, that "aviation fuel" as used in Tax Law § 300(b) covers the fuel sold by plaintiff to the United States Government notwithstanding that its chemical composition differs from that of commercial aviation fuel.
We have not considered the constitutional theories newly advanced before us and which plaintiff concedes were not argued to the courts below. Although within the constitutional concepts presented in the complaint, they have not been preserved for our review in view of plaintiff's failure to argue them below (Matter of Barbara C., 64 N.Y.2d 866, 487 N.Y.S.2d 549, 476 N.E.2d 994; Matter of Eagle v. Paterson, 57 N.Y.2d 831, 455 N.Y.S.2d 759, 442 N.E.2d 56; Barber v. Dembroski, 54 N.Y.2d 648, 442 N.Y.S.2d 768, 426 N.E.2d 175; cf. Cooper v. Morin, 49 N.Y.2d 69, 78, 424 N.Y.S.2d 168, 399 N.E.2d 1188).
Order affirmed, with costs, in a memorandum.
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Colton v. Riccobono
...conducted. That argument was not presented below and, accordingly, it is not preserved for appeal (see, Cibro Petroleum Prods. v. Chu, 67 N.Y.2d 806, 501 N.Y.S.2d 321, 492 N.E.2d 394). Our consideration is limited to the contention which petitioner did present below, that section 148-a and ......
-
Giordano v. O'Neill
...were not raised in the court of first instance and are therefore not preserved for appellate review (see, Cibro Petroleum Prods. v. Chu, 67 N.Y.2d 806, 501 N.Y.S.2d 321, 492 N.E.2d 394; Nelson v. Time Sq. Stores Corp., 110 A.D.2d 691, 487 N.Y.S.2d 814, appeal dismissed 67 N.Y.2d 645, 499 N.......
-
Vill. of Muttontown v. Port Wash. Holding Corp.
...process claims before the Supreme Court. Thus, those claims are not properly before this Court ( see Cibro Petroleum Prods. v. Chu, 67 N.Y.2d 806, 809, 501 N.Y.S.2d 321, 492 N.E.2d 394; Melahn v. Hearn, 60 N.Y.2d 944, 471 N.Y.S.2d 47, 459 N.E.2d 156; Matter of Coleman v. Thomas, 295 A.D.2d ......
-
Millbrook Hunt, Inc. v. Smith
...license is offered for the first time on appeal, and as such, this court declines to reach it (see, Cibro Petroleum Prods. v. Chu, 67 N.Y.2d 806, 809, 501 N.Y.S.2d 321, 492 N.E.2d 394; Geigy v. P.L. Apartment Corp., 228 A.D.2d 644, 645 N.Y.S.2d The Supreme Court did not improvidently exerci......