24 Cited authorities

Pension Benefit Guaranty Corp. v. R. A. Gray Co.
467 U.S. 717 (1984) Cited 759 times 4 Legal Analyses
Holding that retroactive aspects of legislation must satisfy due process, a burden "met simply by showing that the retroactive application of the legislation is itself justified by a rational legislative purpose"
United States v. Carlton
512 U.S. 26 (1994) Cited 181 times 12 Legal Analyses
Holding no violation of due process where retroactive application of a legislative amendment is "rationally related to a legitimate legislative purpose"
United States v. Darusmont
449 U.S. 292 (1981) Cited 109 times 2 Legal Analyses
Holding that the permissible period of retroactivity for federal taxation statutes "has been confined to short and limited periods required by the practicalities of producing national legislation."
Welch v. Henry
305 U.S. 134 (1938) Cited 343 times 2 Legal Analyses
Upholding Wisconsin law providing for retroactive application of graduated tax on dividends
Grace v. New York State Tax Commission
37 N.Y.2d 193 (N.Y. 1975) Cited 191 times 1 Legal Analyses
Argued May 1, 1975 Decided June 12, 1975 Appeal from the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court in the Third Judicial Department. Louis J. Lefkowitz, Attorney-General (Francis V. Dow, Ruth Kessler Toch and Vincent P. Molineaux of counsel), for appellant. Walter J. Rockler for respondent. Chief Judge BREITEL. In an article 78 (CPLR) proceeding, the State Tax Commission appeals from a judgment, denominated an order, of the Appellate Division modifying its determination. The commission had determined
Majewski v. Broadalbin-Perth Central School District
(N.Y. May. 12, 1998) Cited 75 times
In Majewski the New York Court of Appeals observed that "the date that legislation is to take effect is a separate question from whether the statute should apply to claims and rights then in existence."
St. Clair Nation v. City of New York
2010 N.Y. Slip Op. 3471 (N.Y. 2010) Cited 14 times
No. 63. Argued March 22, 2010. decided April 29, 2010. APPEAL, by permission of the Court of Appeals, from a judgment (denominated decision and order) of the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court in the First Judicial Department, entered March 10, 2009, in a proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78 (transferred to the Appellate Division by order of the Supreme Court, entered in New York County). The Appellate Division judgment, insofar as appealed from, modified, on the law, a determination of respondent
Tate Lyle v. Comm'r, Internal Revenue Serv
87 F.3d 99 (3d Cir. 1996) Cited 24 times
Upholding nine-year period of retroactive application
James Square Associates LP v. Mullen
91 A.D.3d 164 (N.Y. App. Div. 2011) Cited 8 times
In James Square Associates, LP v Mullen (91 AD3d 164 [4th Dept., 2011]) the Court affirmed the decision of Justice Cherundolo, not on the absence of legislative intent to make the revocation of Empire Zone certificates retroactive, but rather on substantive due process grounds.
Matter of Roosevelt Raceway v. Monaghan
9 N.Y.2d 293 (N.Y. 1961) Cited 84 times
In Matter of Roosevelt Raceway v. Monaghan (9 N.Y.2d 293), not only did the court expressly reserve the very question here sought to be raised (p. 303) but one judge actually expressed the view that section 45-a was "constitutionally invalid" in its entirety (pp. 311-315, per DYE, J., concurring).
Section 11.9 - Revocation of certification
N.Y. Comp. Codes R. & Regs. tit. 5 § 11.9 Cited 15 times
(a) The commissioner may revoke the certification of a business enterprise upon a finding of any one of the following: (1) the business enterprise made material misrepresentations of fact on its application for certification or on a business annual report, or the business enterprise failed to disclose facts in its application for certification that would constitute grounds for not issuing a certification; (2) the business enterprise has failed to construct, expand, rehabilitate, invest in or operate

James Square Associates LP, et al., Respondents,v.Dennis Mullen, Commissioner New York State Department of Economic Development, et al., Appellants.

24 Cited authorities

Holding that retroactive aspects of legislation must satisfy due process, a burden "met simply by showing that the retroactive application of the legislation is itself justified by a rational legislative purpose"

Holding no violation of due process where retroactive application of a legislative amendment is "rationally related to a legitimate legislative purpose"

Holding that the permissible period of retroactivity for federal taxation statutes "has been confined to short and limited periods required by the practicalities of producing national legislation."

Upholding Wisconsin law providing for retroactive application of graduated tax on dividends

In Majewski the New York Court of Appeals observed that "the date that legislation is to take effect is a separate question from whether the statute should apply to claims and rights then in existence."

Upholding nine-year period of retroactive application

In James Square Associates, LP v Mullen (91 AD3d 164 [4th Dept., 2011]) the Court affirmed the decision of Justice Cherundolo, not on the absence of legislative intent to make the revocation of Empire Zone certificates retroactive, but rather on substantive due process grounds.

In Matter of Roosevelt Raceway v. Monaghan (9 N.Y.2d 293), not only did the court expressly reserve the very question here sought to be raised (p. 303) but one judge actually expressed the view that section 45-a was "constitutionally invalid" in its entirety (pp. 311-315, per DYE, J., concurring).