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
Plaintiff Entitled to Summary Judgment Re: Fall from Non-Defective Ladder After Co-Worker Who Had Been Stabilizing the Ladder Was Called Away—Defendants Did Not Demonstrate Plaintiff Was Adequately Protected—Comparative Negligence Is Not Relevant
DEALERSHIP HAD NOT TRANSFERRED OWNERSHIP OF THE CAR TO THE PURCHASER AT THE TIME OF THE ACCIDENT AND WAS THEREFORE LIABLE TO PLAINTIFF AS THE OWNER, THE DRIVER STRUCK A BARRICADE WHICH IN TURN STRUCK PLAINTIFF WHO WAS WALKING ON THE SIDEWALK, PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED (FIRST DEPT).
DESPITE FATHER’S PRO SE MOTION SEEKING VISITATION, NO PROVISION FOR VISITATION WAS MADE IN THE CUSTODY ORDER, MATTER REMANDED FOR A HEARING (FIRST DEPT).
THE BATSON RECONSTRUCTION HEARING, HELD AFTER THE MATTER WAS SENT BACK BECAUSE OF THE LACK OF AN ADEQUATE RECORD FOR APPEAL, WAS ITSELF DEFICIENT, THE ORIGINAL PROSECUTOR DID NOT TESTIFY AND THE NOTES OF THE ORIGINAL PROSECUTOR WERE NOT PROVIDED TO THE COURT, CONVICTIONS REVERSED AND INDICTMENT DISMISSED (FIRST DEPT).
PHYSICAL INCAPACITY CAN BE A REASONABLE EXCUSE FOR FAILING TO TIMELY FILE A NOTICE OF CLAIM, BUT THE PERIOD OF DISABILITY DOES NOT TOLL THE ONE YEAR AND 90 DAY PERIOD FOR FILING A MOTION FOR LEAVE TO FILE A LATE NOTICE OF CLAIM (FIRST DEPT).
QUESTION OF FACT WHETHER SNAKING A WIRE ABOVE CEILING TILES IS ‘CONSTRUCTION’ WITHIN THE MEANING OF LABOR LAW 241(6); SUPREME COURT REVERSED (FIRST DEPT).
WRITTEN AGREEMENT REQUIREMENT IN POLICY FOR ADDITIONAL INSUREDS DID NOT REQUIRE AN EXECUTED AGREEMENT.
Supreme Court’s Grant of Defendants’ Motion to Set Aside Verdict Reversed

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,...