You are here: / / IN THIS PROSECUTION ALLEGING DEFENDANT CELL PHONE COMPANY’S UNDERPAYMENT...

IN THIS PROSECUTION ALLEGING DEFENDANT CELL PHONE COMPANY’S UNDERPAYMENT OF SALES TAX, DEFENDANT WAS ENTITLED TO THE SALES TAX RETURNS OF OTHER CELL PHONE SERVICE PROVIDERS.

The First Department determined defendant Sprint Communications was entitled to the state’s sales tax returns and records of other providers of mobile telecommunications voice services, but with the names of the providers redacted.  The action was brought by the state and alleged the underpayment of sales tax:

The People claim that they will use only material obtained from third-party discovery and that they have disclosed those materials to defendants. However, the fact that the People have chosen to restrict the materials they will use to prosecute defendants does not mean that defendants must restrict the materials they will use to defend themselves. Moreover, defendants cannot obtain … [the] documents from third parties.

If a document that shows another cell phone company’s or DTF’s position about debundling, etc., happens to mention the other cell phone company’s name, the People may not withhold the entire document. … Instead, the People should replace the taxpayers’ names with “Cell Phone Company No. 1” and “Cell Phone Company No. 2,” or the like. People v Sprint Communications Inc., 2017 NY Slip Op 01801, 1st Dept 3-15-17

 

TAX LAW (IN THIS PROSECUTION ALLEGING DEFENDANT CELL PHONE COMPANY’S UNDERPAYMENT OF SALES TAX, DEFENDANT WAS ENTITLED TO THE SALES TAX RETURNS OF OTHER CELL PHONE SERVICE PROVIDERS)/SALES TAX (CELL PHONE SERVICE PROVIDERS, IN THIS PROSECUTION ALLEGING DEFENDANT CELL PHONE COMPANY’S UNDERPAYMENT OF SALES TAX, DEFENDANT WAS ENTITLED TO THE SALES TAX RETURNS OF OTHER CELL PHONE SERVICE PROVIDERS)/CELL PHONE SERVICE PROVIDERS (SALES TAX, IN THIS PROSECUTION ALLEGING DEFENDANT CELL PHONE COMPANY’S UNDERPAYMENT OF SALES TAX, DEFENDANT WAS ENTITLED TO THE SALES TAX RETURNS OF OTHER CELL PHONE SERVICE PROVIDERS)

You might also like
THE EXAMINATION UNDER OATH (EUO) WAS SCHEDULED BEFORE THE INSURER RECEIVED A CLAIM FORM; THEREFORE THE INSURER DID NOT HAVE TO DEMONSTRATE COMPLIANCE WITH THE NOTICE REQUIREMENTS OF 11 NYCRR 65-3.5 TO BE ENTITLED TO A DEFAULT DECLARATORY JUDGMENT; THE UNDERLYING TRAFFIC ACCIDENT WAS FOUND TO HAVE BEEN STAGED AND CLAIMANT FAILED TO APPEAR AT SCHEDULED EOU’S (FIRST DEPT).
QUESTIONS OF FACT WHETHER DEFENDANT HAD CONSTRUCTIVE NOTICE OF THE RAISED SIDEWALK FLAG AND WHETHER THE DEFECT WAS TRIVIAL IN THIS SLIP AND FALL CASE (FIRST DEPT).
SUPREME COURT SHOULD NOT HAVE DENIED PLAINTIFF’S REQUEST FOR A PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION WITHOUT A HEARING AND THE TEMPORARY RESTRAINING ORDER SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN VACATED WITHOUT A HEARING, DEFENDANTS WERE SEEKING TO TERMINATE PLAINTIFF’S DIALYSIS TREATMENT BASED UPON SHARPLY CONFLICTING EVIDENCE OF PLAINTIFF’S BEHAVIOR (FIRST DEPT).
PLAINTIFFS’ REQUEST FOR SPECIFIED DISCOVERY IN OPPOSITION TO AN “ANTI-SLAPP-LAW” MOTION TO DISMISS SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED, CRITERIA EXPLAINED (FIRST DEPT). ​
Shareholders’ Requests for Documents for Investigation of Possible Wrongdoing by Corporation Were Facially Legitimate Under the Business Corporation Law (BCL) and Common Law–No Need for Shareholders to Bring a Shareholders’ Derivative Action to Procure the Documents
ACTION BASED UPON FAILURE TO SUPERVISE PLAINTIFF’S USE OF A HOSPITAL REST ROOM SOUNDED IN MEDICAL MALPRACTICE, NOT NEGLIGENCE, THE ACTION WAS THEREFORE TIME-BARRED (FIRST DEPT).
IN THIS SIDEWALK SLIP AND FALL CASE, THE MASTER LEASE VIOLATED GENERAL OBLIGATIONS LAW 5-321 WHICH PROHIBITS A LEASE AGREEMENT FROM PROVIDING THE LANDLORD BE INDEMNIFIED FOR LIABILITY FOR THE LANDLORD’S OWN NEGLIGENCE (FIRST DEPT). ​
ACCIDENT CAUSED BY HIGH PRESSURE, NOT GRAVITY; INJURY NOT COVERED BY LABOR LAW 240(1).

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

PRODUCTS LIABILITY ACTION AGAINST ELEVATOR MANUFACTURER SHOULD HAVE SURVIVED... QUESTION OF FACT WHETHER NEGLIGENT WAXING WAS CAUSE OF PLAINTIFF’S FA...