Hicks v. City of Poughkeepsie

293 A.D.2d 711, 741 N.Y.S.2d 424, 2002 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4168

Opinion

In an action to set aside the conveyance of a deed to a parcel of real property, the plaintiff appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Dutchess County (Hillery, J.), dated January 17, 2001, which denied her motion to vacate the sale of the subject property and granted the cross motion of the defendant City of Poughkeepsie to dismiss the complaint.

[712] Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

Contrary to the plaintiffs contention, the notice provided by the defendant City of Poughkeepsie of the impending tax sale of her property complied with due process (see Kennedy v Mossafa, 291 AD2d 378; Matter of 380 Front St. No. 20 Corp. v County of Dutchess, 264 AD2d 739).

The plaintiffs remaining contentions are without merit. Florio, J.P., Smith, Luciano and H. Miller, JJ., concur.

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

Hicks v. City of Poughkeepsie, 293 A.D.2d 711, 741 N.Y.S.2d 424, 2002 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4168 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2002).

293 A.D.2d 711 (Hicks v. City of Poughkeepsie) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

380 Front Street No. 20 Corp. v. County of Dutchess
264 A.D.2d 739 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1999)
Kennedy v. Mossafa
291 A.D.2d 378 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2002)