Pysa Realty Corp. v. City of New York

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Pysa Realty Corp. v. City of New York

23 A.D.3d 290, 808 N.Y.S.2d 12

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

DecidedNovember 22, 2005

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 23 A.D.3d 290 (Pysa Realty Corp. v. City of New York) 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

Pysa Realty Corp. v. City of New York, 23 A.D.3d 290, 808 N.Y.S.2d 12 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2005).

Pincite

Opinion

[291]*291Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Saralee Evans, J.), entered March 26, 2004, which denied petitioner’s motion to vacate an in rem judgment of foreclosure granted on default, unanimously affirmed, with costs.

Petitioner’s conclusory denial of receipt of notice of the foreclosure action was insufficient to rebut the presumption of receipt raised by the deed conveying title to the City (see In Rem Tax Foreclosure Action No. 44, Borough of Bronx, 2 AD3d 241 [2003]). Moreover, here, the presumption of receipt became conclusive when, four months after entry of final judgment, petitioner had not yet instituted proceedings to set aside the deed (see Administrative Code of City of NY § 11-412.1 [h]). We note as well that petitioner has not substantiated its claim that the judgment of foreclosure was erroneously premised upon miscalculated delinquent tax assessments.

We have reviewed petitioner’s remaining contentions and find them unavailing. Concur—Tom, J.P., Andrias, Friedman, Sullivan and Malone, JJ.

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

[291]*291Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Saralee Evans, J.), entered March 26, 2004, which denied petitioner’s motion to vacate an in rem judgment of foreclosure granted on default, unanimously affirmed, with costs.

Petitioner’s conclusory denial of receipt of notice of the foreclosure action was insufficient to rebut the presumption of receipt raised by the deed conveying title to the City (see In Rem Tax Foreclosure Action No. 44, Borough of Bronx, 2 AD3d 241 [2003]). Moreover, here, the presumption of receipt became conclusive when, four months after entry of final judgment, petitioner had not yet instituted proceedings to set aside the deed (see Administrative Code of City of NY § 11-412.1 [h]). We note as well that petitioner has not substantiated its claim that the judgment of foreclosure was erroneously premised upon miscalculated delinquent tax assessments.

We have reviewed petitioner’s remaining contentions and find them unavailing. Concur—Tom, J.P., Andrias, Friedman, Sullivan and Malone, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

23 A.D.3d 290, 808 N.Y.S.2d 12, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/pysa-realty-corp-v-city-of-new-york-nyappdiv-2005.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack