Joseph v. Hyman, 659 F.3d 215

Plaintiffs challenge a New York 8% parking surtax exemption for Manhattan residents (section 1212-A) as applied to their own tax burdens.
The exemption is limited: it applies only to the primary parking location, Manhattan residence, monthly or longer-term payment, non-use for business, and Manhattan-registered vehicle.
The district court dismissed the suit on comity grounds under Levin v. Commerce Energy, Inc., finding federal jurisdiction inappropriate over state tax schemes.
Levin held comity bar can apply to challenges that would not decrease revenue but risk disrupting state tax administration; Hibbs distinguished as involving a fundamental right.
The court analyzes whether appellants are true third parties and whether state courts can provide an adequate remedy; it concludes both lean toward abstention.
New York courts have authority to enjoin unconstitutional tax provisions and provide adequate remedies, supporting the comity-based dismissal.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Does comity bar federal jurisdiction over this state tax challenge?	Appellants argue federal court review is appropriate to challenge the exemption.	Levin counsels abstention; state courts can adequately remedy any constitutional issue.	Yes; comity bars federal jurisdiction; dismissal affirmed.
Are appellants true third parties under Levin’s framework?	Appellants claim to challenge the exemption affecting Manhattan residents, not their own taxes.	Levin requires third-party status; appellants lack true third-party standing.	No; appellants are not true third parties; Levin applies.
Can New York courts provide a plain, speedy, and efficient remedy?	State courts cannot provide an adequate remedy if federal adjudication is declined.	New York law affords prompt remedies; state courts can resolve constitutional tax questions.	Yes; New York courts can adequately address the issue, supporting abstention.
Do the remaining challenges (e.g., Dormant Commerce Clause) succeed?	Plaintiffs contend other constitutional objections have merit.	These challenges lack merit under comity and Levin.	Unavailing; claims fail.
Does Levin apply given the remedies available in state court?	State remedies may be insufficient or less tailored to federal questions.	State remedies are adequate and comity favors dismissal.	Held; Levin counsels dismissal.

Levin v. Commerce Energy, Inc., 130 S. Ct. 2323 (Supreme Court 2010) (comity bars federal adjudication of state tax schemes that disrupt administration or reduce state revenues)
Hibbs v. Winn, 542 U.S. 88 (Supreme Court 2004) (TIA limitations; distinguishes run-of-the-mill tax cases from fundamental-right challenges)
Tennessee Gas Pipeline v. Urbach, 96 N.Y.2d 124 (N.Y. 2001) (state savings provisions cannot rewrite statutes; separation of powers limits NY courts)
Day Wholesale, Inc. v. New York, 51 A.D.3d 383 (N.Y. App. Div. 4th Dep't 2008) (NY courts can enjoin unconstitutional tax provisions)
Tully v. Griffin, Inc., 429 U.S. 68 (Supreme Court 1976) (plain, speedy, and efficient remedies exist under state law)