Legal Opinion

Berkshire Knitting Mills v. City of New York

New York Supreme Court

Decided December 20, 1955PublishedCited by 2 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtMartin M. Frank, J.

Defendants move for summary judgment. In a first cause of action plaintiff seeks a judgment declaring that the city’s business tax does not apply to it. That plaintiff is entitled to such a judgment is conceded for the purpose of this motion. In a second cause of action plaintiff seeks to recover as money had and received all sums paid by it as business tax during the years 1939 to 1953, inclusive. Only the payment of 1939 was made under protest. It is not claimed that any protest was noted, as to any other payment, save as they may have been covered by the initial protest, but it is claimed…

2Cases cited10 opinions

  1. Adrico Realty Corp. v. City of New YorkNew York Court of Appeals · 1928
  2. Tripler v. Mayor, Aldermen & CommonaltyNew York Court of Appeals · 1891
  3. People Ex Rel. Wessell, Nickel & Gross v. CraigNew York Court of Appeals · 1923
  4. United Piece Dye Works v. JosephAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1953
  5. Title Guarantee & Trust Co. v. City of New YorkAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1942

5 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

3Cited by2 opinions

  1. Greidinger v. HoffbergAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1975
  2. Mills v. City of New YorkAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1956

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API