New York Court of Appeals, 1986

Cibro Petroleum Products, Inc. v. Chu

New York Court of Appeals · Decided March 20, 1986

67 N.Y.2d 806; 492 N.E.2d 394; 501 N.Y.S.2d 321; 1986 N.Y. LEXIS 17525

Cases that cite this one

8 later published cases cite this decision.

Village of Muttontown v. Port Washington Holding Corp. (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2010)
Scarangella v. Laborde (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2004)
Maysek & Moran, Inc. v. S.G. Warburg & Co. (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2001)
MB Recycling Unlimited, Inc. v. Jorling (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 1996)
Millbrook Hunt, Inc. v. Smith (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 1996)
Jones v. Harrold (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 1996)
Giordano v. O'Neill (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 1987)
Colton v. Riccobono (N.Y. 1986)

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

OPINION OF THE COURT

Memorandum.

The order of the Appellate Division should be affirmed, with costs, for the reasons stated in the memorandum at the Appellate Division. We add that the legislative history establishes that the tax was intended to "apply to all competing petroleum businesses, and, with the exception of residential fuel and petrochemical feedstocks, to virtually all petroleum sold in the State” (Memorandum of Assembly Rules Committee, 1983 NY Legis Ann, at 173; see, Governor’s Program Bill Memorandum, at 4) and, therefore, that "aviation fuel” as used in Tax Law § 300 (b) covers the fuel sold by plaintiff to *809the United States Government notwithstanding that its chemical composition differs from that of commercial aviation fuel.

We have not considered the constitutional theories newly advanced before us and which plaintiff concedes were not argued to the courts below. Although within the constitutional concepts presented in the complaint, they have not been preserved for our review in view of plaintiff’s failure to argue them below (Matter of Barbara C., 64 NY2d 866; Matter of Eagle v Paterson, 57 NY2d 831; Barber v Dembroski, 54 NY2d 648; cf. Cooper v Morin, 49 NY2d 69, 78).

Chief Judge Wachtler and Judges Meyer, Simons, Kaye, Alexander, Titone and Hancock, Jr., concur.

Order affirmed, with costs, in a memorandum.

Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.