GTE Spacenet Corp. v. New York State Dept. of Taxation and Finance
| Decision Date | 24 February 1994 |
| Parties | GTE SPACENET CORPORATION, etc., Plaintiff-Respondent, v. NEW YORK STATE DEPARTMENT OF TAXATION AND FINANCE, et al., Defendants-Appellants. |
| Court | New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division |
Before CARRO, J.P., and ELLERIN, RUBIN, NARDELLI and TOM, JJ.
Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Shirley Fingerhood, J.), entered on or about August 27, 1993, which granted plaintiff's motion for a preliminary injunction restraining defendants from conducting an administrative hearing concerning plaintiff's claimed tax deficiencies, unanimously affirmed, without costs.
Where the taxpayer claims that a tax statute is wholly inapplicable, it may bring a declaratory judgment action without exhausting administrative remedies (see, Xerox Corp. v. Department of Taxation & Fin., 140 A.D.2d 945, 946, 529 N.Y.S.2d 623, lv. denied, 72 N.Y.2d 809, 534 N.Y.S.2d 666, 531 N.E.2d 298). Plaintiff in this action for a declaratory judgment has sufficiently demonstrated that it is likely to succeed on the merits of its challenges to Tax Law §§ 183, 184, 186-a and 186-c, all of which are to be narrowly construed in favor of the taxpayer (Debevoise & Plimpton v. New York State Dept. of Taxation & Fin., 80 N.Y.2d 657, 661, 593 N.Y.S.2d 974, 609 N.E.2d 514), to satisfy the initial criterion to entitle it to a preliminary injunction of the administrative hearing on its tax liabilities. Moreover, without an injunction, plaintiff would be forced to defend the administrative proceeding to its conclusion even though a judgment in the within action has the potential to render the administrative proceeding unnecessary. Under the circumstances, the IAS court's conclusion that plaintiff faced irreparable harm and was favored by a balancing of the equities was not an abuse of discretion (see, Gambar Enters. v. Kelly Servs., 69 A.D.2d 297, 306, 418 N.Y.S.2d 818).
We have considered defendants' remaining arguments and find them to be without merit.
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Vanderminden v. Vanderminden
...(see, Rick J. Jarvis Assocs. v. Stotler, 216 A.D.2d 649, 651, 627 N.Y.S.2d 810, 812; GTE Spacenet Corp. v. New York State Dept. of Taxation & Fin., 201 A.D.2d 429, 430, 607 N.Y.S.2d 677). In applying the three-pronged test, we conclude that Supreme Court properly granted a preliminary As pa......
-
Kellermueller v. Port Authority of New York and New Jersey
... ... State of N.Y., 37 N.Y.2d 451, 457, 373 N.Y.S.2d 87, 335 ... ...
-
Kallenberg Meat Products, Inc. v. O'Cleireacain
...Bank v. City of New York Finance Admin., 36 N.Y.2d 87, 92, 365 N.Y.S.2d 493, 324 N.E.2d 861; GTE Spacenet Corp. v. New York State Dept. of Taxation & Fin., 201 A.D.2d 429, 607 N.Y.S.2d 677; Banfi Prods. Corp. v. O'Cleireacain, 182 A.D.2d 465, 467, 582 N.Y.S.2d 695). This exception to the ru......
-
Huff v. C.K. Sanitary Systems Inc.
...738, 651 N.Y.S.2d 634; see, Jarvis Assocs. v. Stotler, 216 A.D.2d 649, 650, 627 N.Y.S.2d 810; GTE Spacenet Corp. v. New York State Dept. of Taxation & Fin., 201 A.D.2d 429, 607 N.Y.S.2d 677; Town of Esopus v. Fausto Simoes & Assocs., 145 A.D.2d 840, 841, 535 N.Y.S.2d 827). Here, we find no ......