Hawley v. City of New York

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Hawley v. City of New York

283 A.D. 882, 131 N.Y.S.2d 591, 1954 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5640

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

DecidedApril 12, 1954

StatusPublished

Cited by3 cases

This text of 283 A.D. 882 (Hawley 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

Hawley v. City of New York, 283 A.D. 882, 131 N.Y.S.2d 591, 1954 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5640 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1954).

Pincite

Opinion

In an action in rem to foreclose a tax lien on real property formerly owned by appellant, the appeal is from an order denying a motion to compel the city collector to accept payment of all arrears in taxes and interest or, in the alternative, to permit appellant to open his default in filing an answer. Order affirmed, with $10 costs and disbursements. Knowledge by the tax department of the name and address of an owner of property is not equivalent to knowledge by the city treasurer of that information. The statute requires mailing of notice of foreclosure to the owner’s last-known address as the same appears upon the records in the office of the city treasurer. (Administrative Code of City of New York, § D17-6.0.) It is not disputed that neither the name nor the address of appellant appeared on the city treasurer’s records. Under the circumstances, the fact that the city treasurer did not mail notice of foreclosure to appellant is of no avail. The court is without power to open the default of appellant to answer or redeem. (City of New York v. Lynch, 281 App. Div. 1038, affd. 306 N. Y. 809.) Adel, Acting P. J., Wenzel, Schmidt, Beldock and Murphy, JJ., concur. [See post, p. 1079.]

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

In an action in rem to foreclose a tax lien on real property formerly owned by appellant, the appeal is from an order denying a motion to compel the city collector to accept payment of all arrears in taxes and interest or, in the alternative, to permit appellant to open his default in filing an answer. Order affirmed, with $10 costs and disbursements. Knowledge by the tax department of the name and address of an owner of property is not equivalent to knowledge by the city treasurer of that information. The statute requires mailing of notice of foreclosure to the owner’s last-known address as the same appears upon the records in the office of the city treasurer. (Administrative Code of City of New York, § D17-6.0.) It is not disputed that neither the name nor the address of appellant appeared on the city treasurer’s records. Under the circumstances, the fact that the city treasurer did not mail notice of foreclosure to appellant is of no avail. The court is without power to open the default of appellant to answer or redeem. (City of New York v. Lynch, 281 App. Div. 1038, affd. 306 N. Y. 809.) Adel, Acting P. J., Wenzel, Schmidt, Beldock and Murphy, JJ., concur. [See post, p. 1079.]

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

283 A.D. 882, 131 N.Y.S.2d 591, 1954 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5640, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/hawley-v-city-of-new-york-nyappdiv-1954.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack