Cayuga Indian Nation of New York v. Gould
Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York
1Dissent
Peradotto, J. (dissenting).
I respectfully dissent, and would affirm. I agree with the majority that plaintiff’s two convenience stores are located on a “[qjualified reservation” as that term is defined in Tax Law § 470 (16) (a) and that declaratory relief is available to plaintiff on the facts of this case. I cannot agree with the majority’s conclusion, however, that Tax Law § 471-e is the exclusive statute governing the imposition of sales and excise taxes on cigarettes sold on Indian reservations. In my view, the majority’s conclusion is belied by the plain language of the statute and its…
2Cases cited10 opinions
- Moe v. Confederated Salish & Kootenai Tribes of the Flathead ReservationSupreme Court of the United States · 1976
- Tall Trees Construction Corp. v. Zoning Board of AppealsNew York Court of Appeals · 2001
- Department of Taxation and Finance of NY v. Milhelm Attea & Bros.Supreme Court of the United States · 1994
- City of New York v. Milhelm Attea & Bros., Inc.District Court, E.D. New York · 2008
- Desiderio v. OchsNew York Court of Appeals · 2003
5 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.