Seneca Nation of Indians v. State
Cases that cite this one
7 later published cases cite this decision.
- BROWN, UNIQUE v. STATE OF NEW YORK (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2016)
- Brown ex rel. Stevens v. State (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2016)
- Brown ex rel. Stevens v. State (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2016)
- New York v. United Parcel Service, Inc. (District Court, S.D. New York 2016)
- KEMPER INDEPENDENCE INSURANCE CO. v. ELLIS, LENORE (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2015)
- Kemper Independence Insurance v. Ellis (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2015)
- Kemper Independence Insurance v. Ellis (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2015)
This list shows which later cases cite this one. It does not say how they treated it, and no review of that has been done. Not a substitute for Shepard’s or KeyCite — verify before relying.
Opinion of the Court
Plaintiff commenced this action seeking, inter alia, individual declarations that 20 NYCRR 74.6 (hereafter, the rule), concerning taxes imposed on cigarettes on qualified Indian reservations, is null, void and unenforceable based on the failure of defendant New York State Department of Taxation and Finance (Department) to comply with sections 201-a, 202-a and 202-b of the State Administrative Procedure Act. The Department promulgated the rule in accordance with the statutory mandate governing the sale of tax-exempt cigarettes on qualified reservations to members of an Indian nation or tribe, as well as the collection of the excise tax on cigarette sales to nonmembers of the nation or tribe (see generally Tax Law §§ 471, 471-e). Plaintiff appeals from a judgment that, inter alia, denied its motion for summary judgment seeking declaratory and injunctive relief and granted defendants’ cross motion for summary judgment. We agree with plaintiff that, because “[ijnterpretation of the State Administrative Procedure Act is not dependent on an understanding of technical data or underlying operational practices . . . , the courts [should] use their own competence to decide issues of law raised” (Matter of Industrial Liaison Comm. of Niagara Falls Area Chamber of Commerce v Williams, 72 NY2d 137, 144 [1988]). Nevertheless, we agree with Supreme Court that our standard of review is whether there has been substantial compliance with the State Administrative Procedure Act in promulgating the rule (see § 202 [8]; Industrial Liaison Comm. of Niagara Falls Area Chamber of Commerce, 72 NY2d at 144), and we conclude that there was substantial compliance.
Finally, although the court properly determined the merits of the issues raised in the motion and cross motion before it, the court failed to make the requisite declarations in favor of defendants (see Hirsch v Lindor Realty Corp., 63 NY2d 878, 881 [1984]; Schlossin v Town of Marilla, 48 AD3d 1118, 1119 [2008]). We therefore modify the judgment accordingly. Present — Centra, J.E, Fahey, Eeradotto, Green and Gorski, JJ. [Prior Case History: 31 Misc 3d 1242(A), 2011 NY Slip Op 51087(U).]
Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.