In re Foreclosure of Tax Liens Pursuant to Article II, Title 3, of the Real Property Tax Law

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

In re Foreclosure of Tax Liens Pursuant to Article II, Title 3, of the Real Property Tax Law

11 A.D.3d 461, 782 N.Y.S.2d 359, 2004 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 11575

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

DecidedOctober 4, 2004

StatusPublished

This text of 11 A.D.3d 461 (In re Foreclosure of Tax Liens Pursuant to Article II, Title 3, of the Real Property Tax Law) 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 Foreclosure of Tax Liens Pursuant to Article II, Title 3, of the Real Property Tax Law, 11 A.D.3d 461, 782 N.Y.S.2d 359, 2004 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 11575 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2004).

Pincite

Opinion

In a proceeding to foreclose tax liens, James Milano appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Dutchess County (Brands, J.), dated July 31, 2003, which denied his motion to vacate a judgment of the same court dated November 3, 1999, inter aha, awarding title and possession of the subject property to the County of Dutchess.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

Real Property Tax Law § 1168 provides that a written instrument representing a tax lien is presumptive evidence “of the truth of the statements therein, and of the regularity and validity of all proceedings had in reference to the taxes,” which presumption may not be rebutted more than two years after its issuance “unless the holder thereof shall have procured [the written instrument] by fraud or had previous knowledge that it was fraudulently made.” The appellant failed to plead a cognizable claim of fraud against the County of Dutchess (see Arnold v Hankor Rental Co., 47 AD2d 966, 967 [1975]). Thus, as the appellant’s challenge to the judgment of foreclosure was made more than two years after the foreclosure deed, it was untimely (see Real Property Tax Law § 1168). Ritter, J.P., Krausman, Goldstein and Lifson, JJ., concur.

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

In a proceeding to foreclose tax liens, James Milano appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Dutchess County (Brands, J.), dated July 31, 2003, which denied his motion to vacate a judgment of the same court dated November 3, 1999, inter aha, awarding title and possession of the subject property to the County of Dutchess.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

Real Property Tax Law § 1168 provides that a written instrument representing a tax lien is presumptive evidence “of the truth of the statements therein, and of the regularity and validity of all proceedings had in reference to the taxes,” which presumption may not be rebutted more than two years after its issuance “unless the holder thereof shall have procured [the written instrument] by fraud or had previous knowledge that it was fraudulently made.” The appellant failed to plead a cognizable claim of fraud against the County of Dutchess (see Arnold v Hankor Rental Co., 47 AD2d 966, 967 [1975]). Thus, as the appellant’s challenge to the judgment of foreclosure was made more than two years after the foreclosure deed, it was untimely (see Real Property Tax Law § 1168). Ritter, J.P., Krausman, Goldstein and Lifson, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

11 A.D.3d 461, 782 N.Y.S.2d 359, 2004 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 11575, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/in-re-foreclosure-of-tax-liens-pursuant-to-article-ii-title-3-of-the-real-nyappdiv-2004.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack