Barclay v. City of New York

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Barclay v. City of New York

200 A.D.2d 360, 606 N.Y.S.2d 181

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

DecidedJanuary 4, 1994

StatusPublished

This text of 200 A.D.2d 360 (Barclay 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

Barclay v. City of New York, 200 A.D.2d 360, 606 N.Y.S.2d 181 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1994).

Pincite

Opinion

—Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Walter Schackman, J.), entered June 8, 1993, which denied plaintiffs motion to stay an in rem foreclosure proceeding, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

Plaintiffs motion to stay the in rem foreclosure proceeding was properly denied for failure to show an intentional overassessment or other deliberate misuse of taxing power (Grant Co. v Srogi, 52 NY2d 496, 516-517).

Such intentional misconduct is not found in the fact that the City continued to tax the property even after its income producing potential had been allegedly destroyed by the City in a police action. Plaintiffs property is but one of more than 3500 parcels included in the foreclosure action, and there is no indication that it was singled out for foreclosure or that the Departments of Police and Taxation colluded to cause plaintiff to lose it.

We have considered plaintiffs other arguments, including that the City’s failure to produce records substantiating the delinquent taxes constitutes intentional misconduct (see, Singer v Department of Fin., 191 AD2d 320, 321), and find them to be without merit. Concur — Carro, J. P., Wallach, Asch and Nardelli, JJ.

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

—Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Walter Schackman, J.), entered June 8, 1993, which denied plaintiffs motion to stay an in rem foreclosure proceeding, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

Plaintiffs motion to stay the in rem foreclosure proceeding was properly denied for failure to show an intentional overassessment or other deliberate misuse of taxing power (Grant Co. v Srogi, 52 NY2d 496, 516-517).

Such intentional misconduct is not found in the fact that the City continued to tax the property even after its income producing potential had been allegedly destroyed by the City in a police action. Plaintiffs property is but one of more than 3500 parcels included in the foreclosure action, and there is no indication that it was singled out for foreclosure or that the Departments of Police and Taxation colluded to cause plaintiff to lose it.

We have considered plaintiffs other arguments, including that the City’s failure to produce records substantiating the delinquent taxes constitutes intentional misconduct (see, Singer v Department of Fin., 191 AD2d 320, 321), and find them to be without merit. Concur — Carro, J. P., Wallach, Asch and Nardelli, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

200 A.D.2d 360, 606 N.Y.S.2d 181, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/barclay-v-city-of-new-york-nyappdiv-1994.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack