In Rem Tax Foreclosure Action No. 47

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

In Rem Tax Foreclosure Action No. 47

29 A.D.3d 955, 817 N.Y.S.2d 69

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

DecidedMay 30, 2006

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 29 A.D.3d 955 (In Rem Tax Foreclosure Action No. 47) 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 Rem Tax Foreclosure Action No. 47, 29 A.D.3d 955, 817 N.Y.S.2d 69 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2006).

Pincite

Opinion

a tax lien foreclosure action pursuant to Administrative Code of City § 11-404 (a), Sue Simmonds appeals, as limited by her brief, from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Spodek, J.), dated December 6, 2004, as denied those branches of her motion which were to vacate a judgment of foreclosure and the sede of the subject property to Neighborhood Restore Housing Development Fund Corporation. Ordered

that the order is affirmed insofar as appealed from, with costs. Contrary

to the appellant’s contentions, the record establishes that the judgment of foreclosure against her property was duly entered in the office of the Kings County Clerk on February 20, 2003, thus creating a presumption of regularity of the proceed- ings taken in this action (see Administrative Code of City of NY § 11-411; In Rem Tax Foreclosure Action No. 47, 19 AD3d 547, 548 [2005]). That presumption encompassed compliance by the City of New York with all applicable notice, publication and filing requirements, including its mailing of a notice of foreclosure to the appellant, and the appellant’s mere denial of receipt of such notice was insufficient to overcome the presumption (see (see [956]*956In Rem, Tax Foreclosure Action No. 47, supra). In any event, the presumption of regularity became conclusive four months after the entry of the judgment of foreclosure (see Administrative Code of City of NY § 11-412.1 [h]), and the appellant did not make the underlying motion or take any action to redeem the subject property (see Administrative Code of City of NY § 11-412.1 [d]) within that four-month period (see City of New York v Family House Real Estate Corp., 2 AD3d 241 [2003]). Thus, the Supreme Court properly declined to vacate the judgment of foreclosure and the sale of the subject property to a third party. Prudenti, P.J., Santucci, Krausman and Dillon, JJ., concur.

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

a tax lien foreclosure action pursuant to Administrative Code of City § 11-404 (a), Sue Simmonds appeals, as limited by her brief, from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Spodek, J.), dated December 6, 2004, as denied those branches of her motion which were to vacate a judgment of foreclosure and the sede of the subject property to Neighborhood Restore Housing Development Fund Corporation. Ordered

that the order is affirmed insofar as appealed from, with costs. Contrary

to the appellant’s contentions, the record establishes that the judgment of foreclosure against her property was duly entered in the office of the Kings County Clerk on February 20, 2003, thus creating a presumption of regularity of the proceed- ings taken in this action (see Administrative Code of City of NY § 11-411; In Rem Tax Foreclosure Action No. 47, 19 AD3d 547, 548 [2005]). That presumption encompassed compliance by the City of New York with all applicable notice, publication and filing requirements, including its mailing of a notice of foreclosure to the appellant, and the appellant’s mere denial of receipt of such notice was insufficient to overcome the presumption (see (see [956]*956In Rem, Tax Foreclosure Action No. 47, supra). In any event, the presumption of regularity became conclusive four months after the entry of the judgment of foreclosure (see Administrative Code of City of NY § 11-412.1 [h]), and the appellant did not make the underlying motion or take any action to redeem the subject property (see Administrative Code of City of NY § 11-412.1 [d]) within that four-month period (see City of New York v Family House Real Estate Corp., 2 AD3d 241 [2003]). Thus, the Supreme Court properly declined to vacate the judgment of foreclosure and the sale of the subject property to a third party. Prudenti, P.J., Santucci, Krausman and Dillon, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

29 A.D.3d 955, 817 N.Y.S.2d 69, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/in-rem-tax-foreclosure-action-no-47-nyappdiv-2006.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack