New York Telephone Co. v. County of Nassau
Opinion of the Court
— In an action for a judgment declaring that the defendant is obligated to pay tariff surcharges added to its telephone bills, the defendant appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Nassau County (Roberto, J.), entered November 7, 1985, which granted summary judgment to the plaintiff and directed an inquest to determine the amount of arrears which the defendant presently owes as a result of its failure to pay that portion of its telephone bill related to the surcharges in question.
Order affirmed, with costs.
The defendant Nassau County has refused to pay that portion of its telephone bills attributable to three taxes imposed upon the plaintiff, New York Telephone Company, by the State and local governments. The defendant concedes that it has not paid the bills, but asserts that the policy of allowing the plaintiff to recover these tax payments from the consumer as an operating expense is impermissible since State municipalities are exempt from taxation unless otherwise stated. We conclude that while a close question exists with respect to whether the plaintiff was entitled to summary judgment based upon the defendant’s failure to challenge the rate determinations of the New York State Public Service Commission in a proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78, there is no question that summary judgment was properly granted on the merits since the tariff surcharges are not direct taxes upon the municipality.
In 1937 Tax Law § 186-a was promulgated, which imposed a tax equal to 3% of all the gross income of utilities doing business within the State of New York. Additionally, pursuant to Tax Law § 184, a franchise tax was imposed on transporta
The PSC’s interpretation of the TMB tax surcharge is neither irrational, unreasonable, nor inconsistent with the governing statute and as such it should not be disturbed (see, Manhattan & Queens Fuel Corp. v County of Nassau, 113 AD2d 595; see also, Matter of Great Lakes — Dunbar—Rochester v State Tax Commn., 65 NY2d 339, 343). Moreover, the plaintiff’s imposition of surcharges upon the defendant to recover these additional operating expenses is not the equivalent of directly taxing the municipality. To hold otherwise would afford the municipality an opportunity to claim that any tax imposed upon a party with which it is doing business is not recoverable in the cost of the product with which the municipality is being supplied. This broad interpretation of the tax exemption afforded municipalities would inflict an onerous burden upon every company doing business with a municipality, as the cost of any product attributable to a tax upon the company would have to be computed and deducted from the price of the product. We cannot assume that the Legislature intended such a strict reading of the taxing statutes as is urged by the defendant, and we therefore conclude that the tariff surcharges are not direct taxes upon the municipality. Niehoff, J. P., Rubin, Eiber and Hooper, JJ., concur.
Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.