You are here: / / PETITIONER LIVED IN NEW JERSEY AND COMMUTED TO NEW YORK CITY FOR WORK;...

PETITIONER LIVED IN NEW JERSEY AND COMMUTED TO NEW YORK CITY FOR WORK; ALTHOUGH PETITIONERS OWNED A VACATION HOME IN NORTHFIELD, NEW YORK, AND SPENT THREE WEEKS A YEAR THERE, THE NORTHFIELD HOME DID NOT MEET THE DEFINITION OF A PERMANENT PLACE OF ABODE FOR PURPOSES OF THE TAX LAW; THEREFORE THE TAX TRIBUNAL SHOULD NOT HAVE CONCLUDED PETITIONERS OWED NEW YORK STATE INCOME TAX (THIRD DEPT). ​

The Third Department, reversing the Tax Appeals Tribunal, determined petitioners’ vacation home in Northfield, New York, was not a “permanent place of abode” such that petitioner’s were obligated to pay New York State income tax. Petitioners lived in New Jersey and petitioner Nelson Obus commuted to New York City for work. Apparently the commuting was the basis for finding petitioners spent more than 183 days in New York in the relevant tax years. But petitioner did not commute to work from the vacation house and spent no more than three weeks a year there:

… [T]here are objective facts that tend to support the determination of the Tribunal, including that petitioners had “free and continuous access” to the Northville home … . That said, petitioners fall outside of the purview of the target class of taxpayers who were intended to qualify as statutory residents … . It is not disputed that, at most, petitioners utilized the Northville home for three weeks during each tax year for either skiing or to visit the racetrack in the City of Saratoga Springs, Saratoga County.,,, The Northville home was not used for access to Obus’ job in New York City and was not suitable for such purposes, given that it is over a four-hour drive each way … . In fact, a year-round tenant occupies an attached apartment, who Obus informs of his presence prior to his arrival. Moreover, petitioners do not keep personal effects in the Northville home, instead bringing with them what they will need for their visits. Based on these undisputed facts, petitioners have not utilized the dwelling in a manner which demonstrates that they had a residential interest in the property … . Thus, even though the Northville home could have been used in a manner such that it could constitute a permanent place of abode within the meaning of Tax Law § 605, because petitioners did not use it in this manner, it does not constitute a permanent place of abode … , and a contrary finding by the Tribunal is inconsistent with the legislative intent underlying the statute … . Matter of Obus v New York State Tax Appeals Trib., 2022 NY Slip Op 04206, Third Dept 6-30-22

Practice Point: Here the petitioners apparently spent more than 183 days a year in New York, presumably because one of the petitioners commuted from their New Jersey home to work in New York City. But petitioners did not spend more than three weeks per year in their vacation home in Northfield, New York. Therefore, the Northfield vacation home should have been found to be petitioners’ “permanent place of abode” for the purpose of requiring petitioners to pay New York State income tax.

 

You might also like
EVIDENCE DID NOT SUPPORT THE AWARD OF SOLE CUSTODY OF THE CHILDREN TO THE MATERNAL GRANDMOTHER, MATTER REMITTED FOR FURTHER INQUIRY ABOUT A LEVEL ONE SEX OFFENDER IN THE HOME, INFORMATION FIRST LEARNED IN A LINCOLN HEARING CANNOT BE RELIED UPON WITHOUT FURTHER INVESTIGATION (THIRD DEPT).
EVIDENCE PETITIONER HAD ACCESS TO THE AREA WHERE THE CONTRABAND WAS FOUND WAS NOT SUFFICIENT TO DEMONSTRATE PETITIONER’S POSSESSION OF THE CONTRABAND (THIRD DEPT).
SUPREME COURT SHOULD NOT HAVE GRANTED SUMMARY JUDGMENT FINDING THAT THE VALUE OF COMMON AREAS OF A DEVELOPMENT OWNED AND MAINTAINED BY PETITIONER HOMEOWNERS’ ASSOCIATION WAS ZERO FOR PROPERTY TAX PURPOSES BECAUSE OF ENCUMBRANCES AND RESTRICTIONS, QUESTIONS OF FACT ABOUT THE VALUE OF THE COMMON AREAS HAD BEEN RAISED (THIRD DEPT).
Elements of Malicious Prosecution and Abuse of Process Explained
THE TAX APPEALS TRIBUNAL’S DETERMINATION THAT PETITIONERS CANNOT REDUCE THEIR NEW YORK ADJUSTED GROSS INCOME BY THE AMORTIZED PREMIUMS ON THEIR OUT-STATE-BONDS UPHELD (THIRD DEPT).
AFTER DECLARING A MISTRIAL, THE JUDGE DID NOT DISMISS THE INDICTMENT OR AUTHORIZE A NEW INDICTMENT; THE SUPERSEDING INDICTMENT WAS THEREFORE A NULLITY; BECAUSE THE DEFENDANT WAS CONVICTED OF TWO COUNTS IN THE SUPERSEDING INDICTMENT WHICH WERE IN THE ORIGINAL INDICTMENT (WHICH WAS STILL VALID) THOSE CONVICTIONS WERE ALLOWED TO STAND; THE CONVICTION ON THE COUNT WHICH WAS NOT IN THE ORIGINAL INDICTMENT WAS REVERSED; DOUBLE JEOPARDY DOES NOT ATTACH AFTER A MISTRIAL (THIRD DEPT).
DEFENDANT WAS NOT ADEQUATELY INFORMED OF THE RISKS OF CONTINUING TO BE REPRESENTED BY DEFENSE COUNSEL IN THE PLEA PROCEEDINGS AFTER THE JUDGE AND DEFENSE COUNSEL WERE INFORMED DEFENSE COUNSEL’S FORMER AND CURRENT CLIENTS WOULD BE WITNESSES AT DEFENDANT’S TRIAL, DEFENDANT WAS THEREBY DEPRIVED OF HIS RIGHT TO EFFECTIVE ASSISTANCE OF COUNSEL (THIRD DEPT).
Question of Fact About Whether Golfer, Who Was Injured When the Golf Cart He Was Driving Tipped Over, Was Subject to More than the Normal Hazards Associated with Golfing

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 © 2025 New York Appellate Digest, Inc.
Site by CurlyHost | Privacy Policy

THE PLANNING BOARD’S GRANT OF A SPECIAL USE PERMIT AND SITE PLAN APPROVAL... THE DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH’S FAILURE TO CONSIDER THE FINANCIAL ASPECT OF...