In re City of Lockport

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

In re City of Lockport

187 A.D.2d 993

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

DecidedNovember 18, 1992

StatusPublished

Cited by4 cases

This text of 187 A.D.2d 993 (In re City of Lockport) 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

In re City of Lockport, 187 A.D.2d 993 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1992).

Pincite

Opinion

Order unanimously affirmed with costs. Memorandum: There is no merit to Marine Midland Bank’s contentions that the statutory period for redemption in this in rem tax foreclosure proceeding (RPTL 1124) was so short that it deprived the Bank of due process (see, City of New Rochelle v Echo Bay Waterfront Corp., 268 App Div 182, 190, affd 294 NY 678, cert denied 326 US 720) and that the City was unjustly enriched by its retention of the surplus proceeds resulting from a sale of the property (see, Sheehan v County of Suffolk, 67 NY2d 52, 59, cert denied sub nom. Mackenchnie v County of Sullivan, 478 US 1006; Key [994]*994Bank v County of Broome, 116 AD2d 90, 92). (Appeal from Order of Niagara County Court, Hannigan, J. — Vacate Foreclosure.) Present — Callahan, J. P., Green, Balio, Davis and Doerr, JJ.

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

Order unanimously affirmed with costs. Memorandum: There is no merit to Marine Midland Bank’s contentions that the statutory period for redemption in this in rem tax foreclosure proceeding (RPTL 1124) was so short that it deprived the Bank of due process (see, City of New Rochelle v Echo Bay Waterfront Corp., 268 App Div 182, 190, affd 294 NY 678, cert denied 326 US 720) and that the City was unjustly enriched by its retention of the surplus proceeds resulting from a sale of the property (see, Sheehan v County of Suffolk, 67 NY2d 52, 59, cert denied sub nom. Mackenchnie v County of Sullivan, 478 US 1006; Key [994]*994Bank v County of Broome, 116 AD2d 90, 92). (Appeal from Order of Niagara County Court, Hannigan, J. — Vacate Foreclosure.) Present — Callahan, J. P., Green, Balio, Davis and Doerr, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

187 A.D.2d 993, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/in-re-city-of-lockport-nyappdiv-1992.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack