248 A.D. 207 | N.Y. App. Div. | 1936
We agree with the determination of the comptroller that the transaction which is the subject of this appeal constituted a sale within the meaning of subdivision (e) of section 1 of Local Law No. 24 of the New York Local Laws of 1934 (published as Local Law No. 25). It constituted a transfer of the possession, in conjunction with a “ license to use ” tangible personal property. We are also of opinion that even if such transactions be regarded as originating in interstate commerce (Binderup v. Pathe Exchange, Inc., 263 U. S. 291), the city is not deprived of the power to impose a tax upon the disposition of the films after arrival in this State. (Sonneborn Bros. v. Cureton, 262 U. S. 506; Wiloil Corporation v. Pennsylvania, 294 id. 169; Minnesota v. Blasius, 290 id. 1.)
We are, however, of opinion that the order of certiorari should be sustained and the determination of the comptroller annulled in so far as a tax has been imposed upon the licensing of motion picture films for exhibition outside the territorial limits of the city
The order of certiorari should be sustained and the determination of the comptroller annulled in so far as a tax has been imposed upon the licensing of motion picture films for exhibition outside the territorial limits of the city of New York, without costs.
Present — Martin, P. J., McAvoy, TJntermyer, Dore and Cohn, JJ.
Order of certiorari unanimously sustained and the determination of the comptroller of the city of New York annulled in so far as a tax has been imposed upon the licensing of motion picture films for exhibition outside the territorial limits of the city of New York, without costs.