You are here: / / SPRINT IS NOT A UTILITY AND THEREFORE IS NOT EXEMPT FROM THE UNINCORPORATED...
,

SPRINT IS NOT A UTILITY AND THEREFORE IS NOT EXEMPT FROM THE UNINCORPORATED BUSINESS INCOME TAX.

The First Department, in a full-fledged opinion by Justice Sweeney, determined plaintiff (Sprint) was not a “utility” within the meaning of the relevant statutes and therefore was required to pay both the Utility Tax and the Unincorporated Business Income Tax (UBT). If Sprint were deemed a utility, as opposed to a vendor of utility services, it would have been exempt from the UBT:

The question in Cable & Wireless [Cable & Wireless v City of N.Y. Dept. of Fin. (190 Misc 2d 410, 416 [Sup Ct, NY County 2001])], as it is here, was whether the plaintiff telecommunications firm was a utility or a vendor of utility services. The plaintiff there argued, as plaintiff does here, that, under the plain statutory language, it was “supervised” by the PSC [Public Service Commission] and thus must be classified as a utility. In rejecting plaintiff’s argument, the court conducted an extensive review of the legislative history of the statutes and their amendments, including the history of the circumstances surrounding the statutes’ initial passage in 1933 and their amendments through the 1940s to more recent times. After holding that plaintiff had the burden of proving that it was a supervised utility and thus exempt from the tax at issue, the court held that “in using the words subject to the supervision of the [PSC],’ the City Council did not envision imposing the Utility Tax on gross income on entities such as [the plaintiff] which exhibit none of the characteristics of the monopolies to which the tax was intended to apply” … . The plaintiff was therefore not a utility and was not entitled to an exemption from the UBT.

We find the reasoning in Astoria [Matter of Astoria Gas Turbine Power, LLC v Tax Commn. of City of N.Y. (7 NY3d 451 [2006])] and Cable & Wireless to be equally applicable to the present case. By its own admission, plaintiff is “a competitive entity” that does not enjoy monopoly status. As a result, the “light regulation” by the PSC to which it is subject does not rise to the level of “supervision” necessary to classify it as a utility and thus warrant an exemption from the UBT. Sprint Communications Co., L.P. v City of N.Y. Dept. of Fin., 2017 NY Slip Op 05194, 1st Dept 6-27-17

 

You might also like
The Purchasers’ Purported Retraction of an Earlier Repudiation of the Purchase Contract Was Not “Bona Fide” Because It Imposed a Condition for the Retraction Which Was Not Contemplated by the Purchase Contract—Sellers Entitled to Keep $365,000 Downpayment Based Upon Purchasers’ Failure to Close
WHEN DEFENDANT MADE STATEMENTS AT THE TIME OF THE PLEA WHICH RAISED A POSSIBLE INTOXICATION DEFENSE THE JUDGE SHOULD HAVE INQUIRED FURTHER; THE ISSUE NEEDN’T BE PRESERVED FOR APPEAL (FIRST DEPT).
CIVIL COURT WHICH AWARDED RENT ARREARS IN THE EVICTION PROCEEDING DID NOT HAVE SUBJECT MATTER JURISDICTION OVER THE CLAIM FOR RENT DUE FOR THE REMAINDER OF THE LEASE (POST-EVICTION); THEREFORE THE ACTION IN SUPREME COURT FOR THE POST-EVICTION RENT AS LIQUIDATED DAMAGES WAS NOT BARRED BY THE DOCTRINE OF RES JUDICATA (FIRST DEPT).
COMMON INTEREST PRIVILEGE MAY APPLY TO SUBPOENAED DOCUMENTS.
PLAINTIFFS WERE ENTITLED TO SUMMARY JUDGMENT FINDING DEFENDANT-LANDLORD VIOLATED NYC LOCAL LAW NO. 1 BY FAILING TO TAKE REASONABLE MEASURES TO ADDRESS THE HAZARDOUS LEAD-PAINT CONDITION IN PLAINTIFFS’ APARTMENT; HOWEVER DEFENDANTS RAISED A QUESTION OF FACT WHETHER DEFENDANTS’ NEGLIGENCE WAS THE PROXIMATE CAUSE OF THE CHILD’S INJURIES (FIRST DEPT).
BAILEE CANNOT, PURSUANT TO THE UCC, CONTRACT AWAY LIABILITY FOR LACK OF CARE IN STORING GOODS, PURPORTED WAIVER OF SUBROGATION UNENFORCEABLE.
ALTHOUGH THE SPECIFIC CONTRACT WAS NOT IDENTIFIED IN THE COMPLAINT, THE NATURE OF THE BREACH OF CONTRACT CLAIM WAS SUFFICIENTLY ALLEGED BY REFERENCE TO THE NYC ADMINISTRATIVE CODE AND NYC DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION PERMITS (FIRST DEPT).
AFTER JURISDICTIONAL DISCOVERY, PLAINTIFF DID NOT DEMONSTRATE NEW YORK HAD JURISDICTION OVER THREE OF FOUR NEW JERSEY DEFENDANTS IN THIS MEDICAL MALPRACTICE CASE; WITH RESPECT TO ONE NEW JERSEY DEFENDANT, THE JURISDICTION ISSUE MUST BE DECIDED BY THE JURY (FIRST DEPT).

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

MOTION TO SET ASIDE THE VERDICT IN THIS SLIP AND FALL CASE SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN... DEFENDANTS, OPERATORS OF A VIRGINIA HOTEL WHERE PLAINTIFF WAS INJURED IN A SHOWER,...