Amsterdam 147 Inc. v. City of New York

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Amsterdam 147 Inc. v. City of New York

11 A.D.3d 413, 783 N.Y.S.2d 568, 2004 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 12718

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

DecidedOctober 28, 2004

StatusPublished

This text of 11 A.D.3d 413 (Amsterdam 147 Inc. v. City of New York) 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

Amsterdam 147 Inc. v. City of New York, 11 A.D.3d 413, 783 N.Y.S.2d 568, 2004 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 12718 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2004).

Pincite

Opinion

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Saralee Evans, J.), entered November 27, 2002, which granted defendants’ motion to dismiss the complaint, unanimously affirmed, with costs.

Flaintiff sought a declaration that the lien against its property for amounts billed for nuisance abatement, pursuant to Administrative Code of the City of New York § 17-151, was not valid. Although the Department of Health failed to comply with section 17-151 (a), by not filing the purchase or work orders within 30 days of issuance of the nuisance abatement order, plaintiff purchased the building after the charges were recorded with the Department of Finance, and thus had notice of the lien (see Matter of 105th St. Dev. Corp. v Commissioner of Dept. of Health of City of N.Y., 189 Misc 2d 342 [2001]; cf. Rosenbaum v City of New York, 96 NY2d 468 [2001]).

We have considered plaintiffs remaining contentions and find them unavailing. Concur—Nardelli, J.P., Saxe, Ellerin, Gonzalez and Catterson, JJ.

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

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Saralee Evans, J.), entered November 27, 2002, which granted defendants’ motion to dismiss the complaint, unanimously affirmed, with costs.

Flaintiff sought a declaration that the lien against its property for amounts billed for nuisance abatement, pursuant to Administrative Code of the City of New York § 17-151, was not valid. Although the Department of Health failed to comply with section 17-151 (a), by not filing the purchase or work orders within 30 days of issuance of the nuisance abatement order, plaintiff purchased the building after the charges were recorded with the Department of Finance, and thus had notice of the lien (see Matter of 105th St. Dev. Corp. v Commissioner of Dept. of Health of City of N.Y., 189 Misc 2d 342 [2001]; cf. Rosenbaum v City of New York, 96 NY2d 468 [2001]).

We have considered plaintiffs remaining contentions and find them unavailing. Concur—Nardelli, J.P., Saxe, Ellerin, Gonzalez and Catterson, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

11 A.D.3d 413, 783 N.Y.S.2d 568, 2004 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 12718, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/amsterdam-147-inc-v-city-of-new-york-nyappdiv-2004.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack