Court Opinion

ID: 5534594
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2022-01-10 18:17:41.267193+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T08:34:40.221753
License: Public Domain

OPINION OF THE COURT
Memorandum.
The judgment of the Appellate Division should be reversed, with costs, and the determination of the State Tax Commission is reinstated.
We find no error in the determination of the State Tax Commission that the mortgage agreement in question was a supplemental mortgage within the purview of section 255 of the Tax Law and did not create a new or further indebtedness or obligation. The commission found that the agreement did not change the creditor, the maturity or interest rate, but instead it changed only the collateral. Hence, no additional mortgage tax was due upon the recording of this agreement. It is significant that the release of the leasehold from the lien did not occur before the fee was added to the security for the principal indebtedness. Additionally, we note that respondent taxpayer is not entitled to interest on its refund from the time of payment of the tax (Matter of Brodsky v Murphy, 25 NY2d 518).
Chief Judge Cooke and Judges Gabrielli, Jones, Wachtler, Fuchsberg and Meyer concur in a memorandum; Judge Jasen taking no part.
Judgment reversed, etc.