Heller v. Chu
| Citation | 490 N.Y.S.2d 326,111 A.D.2d 1007 |
| Parties | In the Matter of Harry HELLER, Petitioner, v. Roderick G.W. CHU et al., Consituting the State Tax Commission of the State of New York, Respondents. |
| Decision Date | 13 June 1985 |
| Court | New York Supreme Court Appellate Division |
Henry Schneider, New York City (Pauline B. Heller, Washington, D.C., of counsel), for petitioner.
Robert Abrams, Atty. Gen., Albany (Nancy A. Spiegel, Albany, of counsel), for respondents.
Before MAIN, J.P., and MIKOLL, YESAWICH, LEVINE and HARVEY, JJ.
MAIN, Justice Presiding.
Proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78 () to review a determination of the State Tax Commission which modified a personal income tax assessment imposed under Tax Law article 22 for the years 1965 and 1966.
Petitioner has been a resident of the District of Columbia since 1948. During 1965 and 1966, the years at issue, petitioner practiced law in the District and maintained a professional association with the New York City law firm of Simpson, Thacher & Bartlett (hereinafter the firm). Petitioner would represent the firm's clients when they had matters in the District, in return for which he received an annual fixed compensation and retained 60% of the fees he generated. In addition, the firm maintained petitioner's office in the District. Petitioner was denominated a partner of the firm in the Martindale-Hubbell directory and the firm's personnel directory, but he never signed the firm's partnership agreement, shared in the firm's profits or was liable for the firm's losses.
For 1965 and 1966, petitioner did not pay any New York State income tax. Thus, by notices dated May 3, 1968, petitioner was assessed $14,812.88 in taxes, penalty and interest for failure to pay State income taxes in 1965 and 1966. Petitioner then served a petition for redetermination in July 1968. No further action was taken until some 11 1/2 years later when, by notice dated December 21, 1979, the State Tax Commission scheduled a formal hearing. Petitioner then moved to serve an amended petition and to compel the Tax Commission to serve an answer. A final notice of formal hearing dated April 25, 1980 was served and a hearing was held. No answer was served by the Tax Commission until the hearing commenced on May 27, 1980.
At the conclusion of the hearing, petitioner filed proposed findings of fact, but no determination was issued by the Tax Commission for some four years. By determination dated April 6, 1984, the Tax Commission upheld the notice of deficiency dated May 3, 1968, subject to modifications not here at issue, concluding that petitioner was a nonresident partner of the firm who had received distributions of partnership income which were derived from New York sources and, thus, subject to New York income tax under Tax Law § 637(a) and 20 NYCRR 134.1. Petitioner commenced the instant CPLR article 78 proceeding to challenge the Tax Commission's determination and it has been transferred to this court.
We annul. We are deeply disturbed by the delay which has characterized this matter. Without explanation, it took the Tax Commission 12 years to schedule and hold a hearing and to file an answer. It took another four years before the Tax Commission issued a determination following the hearing. Such inordinate, unexplained delay cannot pass scrutiny. We recognize that the time periods imposed on administrative agencies * are merely directory (see, e.g., Matter of Geary v. Commissioner of Motor Vehicles of State of N.Y., 92 A.D.2d 38, 40, 459 N.Y.S.2d 494 affd. 59 N.Y.2d 950, 466 N.Y.S.2d 304, 453 N.E.2d 533) and that, where a party suffers substantial prejudice, unreasonable delay by an administrative agency does not deprive the agency of jurisdiction. An unreasonable delay can, however, constitute an...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
N.Y. State Dept. of Labor (Unemployment Ins. Appeal Bd.) v. N.Y. State Div. of Human Rights
...contributed to these delays, they were an abuse ofSDHR's discretion that prejudiced all parties ( see Matter of Heller v. Chu, 111 A.D.2d 1007, 1008-1009, 490 N.Y.S.2d 326 [1985], appeal dismissed 66 N.Y.2d 696, 496 N.Y.S.2d 424, 487 N.E.2d 281 [1985] ). In light of our holding, we need not......
-
Damianos v. Axelrod
...1044, 553 N.Y.S.2d 879; Matter of Erdos v. New York State Dept. of Educ., 105 A.D.2d 504, 481 N.Y.S.2d 457; cf., Matter of Heller v. Chu, 111 A.D.2d 1007, 490 N.Y.S.2d 326). Considering the degree of the petitioner's violation of controlled substances prescription procedure, we cannot say t......
-
N.Y. State Dep't of Corr. & Cmty. v. N.Y. State Div. of Human Rights
...Ins. Appeal Bd.] v. New York State Div. of Human Rights, 71 A.D.3d at 1238–1239, 897 N.Y.S.2d 740 ; Matter of Heller v. Chu, 111 A.D.2d 1007, 1008–1009, 490 N.Y.S.2d 326 [1985], appeal dismissed 66 N.Y.2d 696, 496 N.Y.S.2d 424, 487 N.E.2d 281 [1985] ). The remaining arguments are academic.A......
-
Syquia v. Board of Educ. of Harpursville Cent. School Dist.
...in various contexts that deadlines imposed by statute will be read as directory rather than mandatory (see, e.g., Matter of Heller v. Chu, 111 A.D.2d 1007, 490 N.Y.S.2d 326, appeal dismissed 66 N.Y.2d 696, 496 N.Y.S.2d 424, 487 N.E.2d 281; Matter of Geary v. Commissioner of Motor Vehicles, ......