Hicks v. City of Poughkeepsie

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Hicks v. City of Poughkeepsie

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

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

DecidedApril 29, 2002

StatusPublished

This text of 293 A.D.2d 711 (Hicks v. City of Poughkeepsie) 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

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).

Pincite

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]*712Ordered 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

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]*712Ordered 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.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

293 A.D.2d 711, 741 N.Y.S.2d 424, 2002 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4168, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/hicks-v-city-of-poughkeepsie-nyappdiv-2002.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack