Allstate Insurance v. Tax Commission of the State
Cases that cite this one
16 later published cases cite this decision.
- The Matter of Wegmans Food Markets v. Tax Appeals Tribunal of the State of New York (N.Y. 2019)
- Stahlbrodt v. Commissioner of Taxation & Finance (New York Supreme Court 1996)
- Xerox Corp. v. Department of Taxation & Finance (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 1988)
- Metro Enters. Corp. v. New York State Dept. of Taxation & Fin. (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2019)
- Matter of Wegmans Food Mkts., Inc. v. Tax Appeals Trib. of The State of New York (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2017)
- Jacono v. Department of Taxation & Finance (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2011)
- Tennessee Gas Pipeline Co. v. Urbach (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2000)
- Kallenberg Meat Products, Inc. v. O'Cleireacain (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 1994)
- Two Twenty East Ltd. Partnership v. New York State Department of Taxation & Finance (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 1992)
- American Telephone & Telegraph Co. v. New York State Department of Taxation & Finance (New York Supreme Court 1992)
- Westwood Pharmaceuticals, Inc. v. Chu (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 1990)
- Empire State Building Co. v. New York State Department of Taxation & Finance (New York Supreme Court 1990)
- Fahey v. Axelrod (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 1989)
- Hooper Holmes, Inc. v. Wetzler (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 1989)
- Rich Products Corp. v. Chu (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 1987)
- Nole v. Passidomo (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 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
On review of submissions pursuant to section 500.4 of the Rules of the Court of Appeals (22 NYCRR 500.4), order affirmed, with costs. We agree with the Appellate Division that a declaratory judgment action is an inappropriate vehicle to resolve this controversy because a pure matter of law is not involved and the administrative process has already been commenced (see, Hewlett Assoc. v City of New York, 57 NY2d 356, 363; Harcel Liqs. v Evsam Parking, 48 NY2d 503, 506; Slater v Gallman, 38 NY2d 1).
Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.