Tuohy v. Procaccino
| Decision Date | 22 January 1976 |
| Citation | 51 A.D.2d 630,378 N.Y.S.2d 810 |
| Parties | In the Matter of Sylvester L. TUOHY, Petitioner, v. Mario A. PROCACCINO et al., Constituting the State Tax Commission, Respondent. |
| Court | New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division |
Sylvester L. Tuohy, pro se.
Louis J. Lefkowitz, Atty. Gen. (John F. Forner, Jr., Albany, of counsel), for respondent.
Before HERLIHY, P.J., and GREENBLOTT, KANE, KOREMAN and MAIN, JJ.
Proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78 () to review a determination of the State Tax Commission which denied petitioner's application for a refund of personal income taxes for the year 1971.
Petitioner, a New Jersey resident, was employed during 1971 as an instructor at the College of Mount Saint Vincent located in Bronx County, New York. He commenced this proceeding following a determination by the State Tax Commission that he was not entitled to a refund of personal income taxes for the year 1971 upon his claim this income derived from New York sources should not include an amount representing his allocation of income to days he worked without this State. The record reveals that although his employer supplied him with office space at the college, petitioner chose to work at his New Jersey home when preparing for classes and grading examination papers. Substantial evidence supports the determination that this work was not required to be accomplished out-of-state by his employer, but was performed there by petitioner for his own convenience. Accordingly, the determination must be confirmed (Matter of Speno v. Gallman, 35 N.Y.2d 256, 360 N.Y.S.2d 855, 319 N.E.2d 180; Matter of Page v. State Tax Comm., 46 A.D.2d 341, 362 N.Y.S.2d 599).
Determination confirmed, and petition dismissed, without costs.
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Fass v. State Tax Commission
...256, 360 N.Y.S.2d 855, 319 N.E.2d 180; Matter of Gross v. State Tax Comm., 62 A.D.2d 1117, 404 N.Y.S.2d 437; Matter of Tuohy v. Procaccino, 51 A.D.2d 630, 378 N.Y.S.2d 810.) The manifest rationale of these cases is that work performed at an out-of-state home which just as easily could have ......