114 Aldrich, Inc. v. City of Buffalo

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

114 Aldrich, Inc. v. City of Buffalo

216 A.D.2d 932, 629 N.Y.S.2d 146, 1995 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 7263

CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York

DecidedJune 9, 1995

StatusPublished

Cited by4 cases

This text of 216 A.D.2d 932 (114 Aldrich, Inc. v. City of Buffalo) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

114 Aldrich, Inc. v. City of Buffalo, 216 A.D.2d 932, 629 N.Y.S.2d 146, 1995 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 7263 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1995).

Pincite

Opinion

Order unanimously affirmed without costs. Memorandum: County Court properly denied plaintiffs application to set aside a foreclosure sale of property located in the City of Buffalo. The testimony of an employee of the Department of Assessment of the City of Buffalo, as well as documentary evidence, demonstrated that notice of the foreclosure had been sent to plaintiff at plaintiff’s address, 114 Aldrich Place. That notice was sufficient (see, RPTL 1124 [2]; see also, Matter of Tax Foreclosure Action No. 34, 191 AD2d 679), and mere denial of receipt of the notice, standing alone, is insufficient to rebut the presumption that notice was received by plaintiff (see, Best v City of Rochester, 195 AD2d 1073,1074). The testimony of plaintiff’s officer that he would not have knowingly allowed the property to be sold in foreclosure is likewise insufficient to rebut the presumption of notice (see, Law v Benedict, 197 AD2d 808, 810). We do not consider this case to be an appropriate one for the exercise of this Court’s equity jurisdiction (see generally, Polish Natl. Alliance v White Eagle Hall Co., 98 AD2d 400, 407). (Appeal from Order of Erie County Court, D’Amico, J.—Vacate Tax Foreclosure.) Present—Green, J. P., Fallon, Callahan, Doerr and Davis, JJ.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Order unanimously affirmed without costs. Memorandum: County Court properly denied plaintiffs application to set aside a foreclosure sale of property located in the City of Buffalo. The testimony of an employee of the Department of Assessment of the City of Buffalo, as well as documentary evidence, demonstrated that notice of the foreclosure had been sent to plaintiff at plaintiff’s address, 114 Aldrich Place. That notice was sufficient (see, RPTL 1124 [2]; see also, Matter of Tax Foreclosure Action No. 34, 191 AD2d 679), and mere denial of receipt of the notice, standing alone, is insufficient to rebut the presumption that notice was received by plaintiff (see, Best v City of Rochester, 195 AD2d 1073,1074). The testimony of plaintiff’s officer that he would not have knowingly allowed the property to be sold in foreclosure is likewise insufficient to rebut the presumption of notice (see, Law v Benedict, 197 AD2d 808, 810). We do not consider this case to be an appropriate one for the exercise of this Court’s equity jurisdiction (see generally, Polish Natl. Alliance v White Eagle Hall Co., 98 AD2d 400, 407). (Appeal from Order of Erie County Court, D’Amico, J.—Vacate Tax Foreclosure.) Present—Green, J. P., Fallon, Callahan, Doerr and Davis, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

216 A.D.2d 932, 629 N.Y.S.2d 146, 1995 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 7263, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/114-aldrich-inc-v-city-of-buffalo-nyappdiv-1995.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack