Legal Opinion

Manhattan & Queens Fuel Corp. v. Village of Rockville Centre

New York Court of Appeals

Decided June 2, 1988PublishedCited by 4 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

OPINION OF THE COURT

Memorandum.

The order of the Appellate Division should be affirmed, with costs.

The issue in this action for breach of contract is whether *825defendant Village is contractually obligated to reimburse plaintiff for certain gross receipt taxes plaintiff paid to the Tax Commission pursuant to Tax Law § 300 (c) and § 301 (a). At the time plaintiff and defendant contracted for the sale of oil, no gross receipts tax was applicable to the transaction. Approximately four weeks into the contract, the Legislature amended the Tax Law to subject plaintiff to a gross receipts tax on this…

2Cases cited2 opinions

  1. Manhattan & Queens Fuel Corp. v. County of NassauAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1986
  2. Manhattan & Queens Fuel Corp. v. County of NassauNew York Court of Appeals · 1986

3Cited by4 opinions

  1. Cargill, Incorporated, Plaintiff-Appellee-Cross-Appellant v. Charles Kowsky Resources, Inc. Charles Kowsky John Conway, Defendants-Appellants-CrossCourt of Appeals for the Second Circuit · 1991
  2. Sinram-Marnis Oil Co. v. City of New YorkNew York Court of Appeals · 1989
  3. Sinram-Marnis Oil Co. v. City of New YorkAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1988
  4. Sinram-Marnis Oil Co. v. City of New YorkAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1988

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

Powered by the Exa API