You are here: / / Hotel Room Occupancy Tax On Online Hotel Reservations Okay
,

Hotel Room Occupancy Tax On Online Hotel Reservations Okay

The Court of Appeals, in a full-fledged opinion by Judge Rivera, held that a New York City hotel room occupancy tax (Local Law 43), applicable to online travel companies through which customers make hotel reservations, was constitutional (reversing the Appellate Division):

Online travel companies like the plaintiffs have successfully reshaped the way people book travel.  Now, a customer can conveniently and efficiently search the plaintiffs’ websites for a hotel room and reserve it with the click of a button.  While it may no longer seem novel to reserve a hotel room online, this innovation revamped the industry, and the industry players have reaped considerable profits.  However, this innovation has not changed the main purpose of a hotel reservation process: selecting and paying for a room for future occupancy.  Local Law 43 adheres to its enabling purpose, the taxation of hotel occupancy rent and charges, by taxing everything a hotel occupant actually pays for occupancy when booking online. * * *

Local Law 43 is not unconstitutional because the State Legislature granted the City broad authority to impose a tax on hotel occupants, and Local Law 43 taxes only payments for the occupancy of a hotel room.  Expedia Inc … v City of New York Department of Finance…, 180, CtApp 11-21-13

 

You might also like
Defendant’s Inability to Participate in the Prison Sex Offender Treatment Program Based Upon His Disciplinary Record Should Not Have Been Deemed a “Refusal” to Participate in the Program
DEFENSE COUNSEL NOT INEFFECTIVE FOR FAILING TO SHOW PSYCHIATRIC EXPERT PHOTOS OF VICTIM’S WOUNDS AND FAILING TO INFORM EXPERT OF THE PEOPLE’S REVENGE THEORY.
Although the Right to Appeal Could Have Been Defined More Fully, Defendant’s Waiver of Appeal In Response to a Colloquy Conducted by the Prosecutor Deemed Sufficient
COURT PROPERLY REFUSED TO APPROVE CLASS ACTION SETTLEMENT WHICH DID NOT GIVE OUT OF STATE SHAREHOLDERS THE RIGHT TO OPT OUT.
DENIALS OF PETITIONER’S REQUESTS FOR DOCUMENTS AND WITNESSES WERE PRESERVED FOR REVIEW, NO NEED FOR PETITIONER TO SPECIFICALLY OBJECT.
A Sex Offender Cannot Be Confined to a Treatment Facility as Part of “Strict and Intensive Supervision” under Article 10
​ THE NEW YORK CITY ADMINSTRATIVE CODE PROVISION CRIMINALIZING THE USE OF CERTAIN RESTRAINTS WHICH RESTRICT AIR AND BLOOD FLOW IS VALID (CT APP). ​
TIER 3 NYC POLICE OFFICERS CANNOT COUNT YEARS OF NON-POLICE SERVICE TOWARD THE 22 YEARS OF POLICE SERVICE REQUIRED FOR RETIREMENT ELIGIBILITY (CT APP).

Categories

Sign Up for the Mailing List to Be Notified When the Site Is Updated.

  • This field is for validation purposes and should be left unchanged.

Copyright © 2026 New York Appellate Digest, Inc.
Site by CurlyHost | Privacy Policy

Depraved Indifference Murder Convictions Stemming from Outrageously Reckless... Defendant Entitled to New Counsel After Defense Attorney Took a Position Adverse...