Matter of Tax Foreclosure No. 35. City of New York

522 N.E.2d 1044, 71 N.Y.2d 863, 527 N.Y.S.2d 747, 1988 N.Y. LEXIS 203
CourtNew York Court of Appeals
DecidedMarch 29, 1988
StatusPublished
Cited by20 cases

This text of 522 N.E.2d 1044 (Matter of Tax Foreclosure No. 35. City of New York) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering New York Court of Appeals primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Matter of Tax Foreclosure No. 35. City of New York, 522 N.E.2d 1044, 71 N.Y.2d 863, 527 N.Y.S.2d 747, 1988 N.Y. LEXIS 203 (N.Y. 1988).

Opinion

OPINION OF THE COURT

Memorandum.

The order of the Appellate Division should be affirmed, with costs.

Appellant property owner in this in rem tax foreclosure action by the City seeks to set aside a default judgment and redeem his former property, contending that the Administrative Code of the City of New York §§ D17-16.0, D17-17.0 (now §§ 11-416, 11-417) denied him due process by the failure to *865 provide for actual notice to all property owners prior to tax foreclosure (see, Matter of McCann v Scaduto, 71 NY2d 164). Petitioner’s challenge must be rejected, however, and the Appellate Division order affirmed, without reaching the constitutional issue. After learning of the judgment of foreclosure, appellant requested of the City essentially the same relief he now seeks of the courts. Appellant was advised that his request had been granted and the City’s interest in the property would be released if, within a given time, he paid the taxes, interest and penalties. For nearly two years thereafter appellant, however, took no action to make the payments or redeem the property. Having failed to avail himself of the right to redeem granted upon his request, appellant cannot now be heard to complain of a deprivation of due process in the forfeiture of the property (see, e.g. Selzer v Baker, 295 NY 145, 149).

Chief Judge Wachtler and Judges Simons, Kaye, Alexander, Hancock, Jr., and Bellacosa concur; Judge Titone taking no part.

On review of submissions pursuant to section 500.4 of the Rules of the Court of Appeals (22 NYCRR 500.4), order affirmed, with costs, in a memorandum. Certified question answered in the affirmative.

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

Related

Matter of Foreclosure of Tax Liens
187 N.Y.S.3d 778 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2023)
Dennard v. City of Buffalo Examining Board of Plumbers
124 A.D.3d 1337 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2015)
Oznor Corp. v. County of Monroe
60 A.D.3d 1492 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2009)
Gillen v. Incorporated Village of Valley Stream
39 A.D.3d 814 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2007)
Grant v. In Rem Foreclosure Release Board
226 A.D.2d 375 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1996)
Jones v. City of White Plains
220 A.D.2d 388 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1995)
Diamond L. & M. Ranch Enterprises v. City of New York Department of Finance
209 A.D.2d 193 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1994)
L & O Realty Corp. v. New York City Department of Housing Preservation & Development
200 A.D.2d 654 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1994)
Tax Foreclosure Action No. 34 v. City of New York
189 A.D.2d 681 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1993)
In re Foreclosure Action No. 39
186 A.D.2d 624 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1992)
Upper East Side Community Development Corp. v. City of New York Division of Real Property
177 A.D.2d 260 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1991)
In re the City of New York
171 A.D.2d 792 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1991)
Solomon v. City of New York
171 A.D.2d 739 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1991)
Napolitano v. Biderman
171 A.D.2d 654 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1991)
ISCA Enterprises v. City of New York
160 A.D.2d 698 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1990)
Nitchie Barrett Realty Corp. v. Biderman
704 F. Supp. 369 (S.D. New York, 1988)
Township of Jefferson v. Block 447A, Lot 10
548 A.2d 521 (New Jersey Superior Court App Division, 1988)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
522 N.E.2d 1044, 71 N.Y.2d 863, 527 N.Y.S.2d 747, 1988 N.Y. LEXIS 203, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/matter-of-tax-foreclosure-no-35-city-of-new-york-ny-1988.