In a recent ruling, the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York upheld a decision regarding tax refunds for Edward A. Zelinsky, a law professor who worked remotely during the COVID-19 pandemic. The court ruled that New York could tax income earned by Zelinsky, a Connecticut resident, while he worked from home. This decision affects nonresident taxpayers who may have similar claims for tax refunds based on remote work circumstances.
The case, titled Matter of Zelinsky v. Commissioner of Taxation & Finance of the State of N.Y. (CV-25-1156), was decided on July 2, 2026. The court's ruling confirmed the state's authority to tax income earned by nonresidents under specific conditions, particularly during the pandemic when many employees shifted to remote work.
The dispute arose when Zelinsky and his wife filed for tax refunds for the 2019 and 2020 tax years, claiming that a portion of his income should not be subject to New York state taxes since he performed his work remotely from Connecticut. The New York Division of Taxation had previously determined that his income remained taxable as New York source income under the so-called convenience of the employer rule, which states that if a nonresident works remotely for their employer's convenience, that income is still taxable in New York.
Edward A. Zelinsky, who is also a law professor at Cardozo Law School, argued that the pandemic forced him to work remotely, and thus the income earned during this time should not be taxed by New York. The Tax Appeals Tribunal upheld the Division's decision, leading Zelinsky to appeal to the Appellate Division.
The Appellate Division's ruling confirmed the Tribunal's decision, stating that the proper legal standard had been applied. The court noted, "our review in tax proceedings is limited. If the Tribunal's determination is rationally based upon and supported by substantial evidence, it must be confirmed, even if it is reasonably possible to reach a different conclusion." The judges involved in the ruling included Clark, J.P., Fisher, Powers, Mackey, and Corcoran.
In its decision, the court emphasized that the convenience of the employer rule was properly applied to Zelinsky's situation. The court found that although the pandemic changed the way work was performed, it did not alter the fundamental nature of the employment relationship. The law school did not require Zelinsky to work from Connecticut; rather, he chose to do so for his convenience.
The court further elaborated on the implications of the pandemic on the convenience rule, stating that the distinction between work performed out of necessity versus convenience remains a valid test. The court concluded that Zelinsky's employer did not require him to work from Connecticut, even though he could not physically be present on campus due to state mandates.
This ruling has significant implications for nonresident taxpayers who work remotely for New York employers. It reinforces the state's ability to tax income earned by nonresidents, even when that work is performed outside of New York, as long as the employment relationship maintains a connection to the state.
Going forward, this decision may deter similar claims for tax refunds from nonresidents who worked remotely during the pandemic. The court's ruling underscores the importance of the convenience of the employer rule in determining tax liability for nonresidents.
As for the possibility of an appeal, the court's ruling can be further contested in higher courts, but it remains to be seen whether Zelinsky will pursue that option. There are no related cases pending at this time.