In re City of Lockport

187 A.D.2d 993
Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York·Decided November 18, 1992·Published·Cited by 4 cases

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

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

187 A.D.2d 993 (In re City of Lockport) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Matter of Hoge v. Chautauqua County
2019 NY Slip Op 4821 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2019)
Oneida Indian Nation of NY v. Madison County
605 F.3d 149 (Second Circuit, 2011)
Oneida Indian Nation v. Madison County
665 F.3d 408 (Second Circuit, 2011)
In re the Foreclosure of Tax Liens by Proceeding in Rem Pursuant to Article 11 of the Real Property Tax Law
72 A.D.3d 1636 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2010)