Sanderson v. Elman

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Sanderson v. Elman

18 A.D.2d 958, 238 N.Y.S.2d 168, 1963 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4334

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

DecidedFebruary 21, 1963

StatusPublished

This text of 18 A.D.2d 958 (Sanderson v. Elman) 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

Sanderson v. Elman, 18 A.D.2d 958, 238 N.Y.S.2d 168, 1963 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4334 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1963).

Pincite

Opinion

Judgment unanimously affirmed, without costs of this appeal to any party. Certain additional findings ma(le. Memorandum: We find no jurisdictional errors in the tax foreclosure proceeding based upon failure to pay 1953 taxes. Therefore, Snivel Realty Corporation has title to the property to the [959]*959exclusion of the plaintiff, Sanderson, and the judgment should be affirmed. However, there is an additional ground for affirmance and that is that the defendant Elman, Snivel Realty 'Corporation’s grantor, received a tax deed in 1958 .based upon a 1948 default. There is no defect in that proceeding. We find that this deed, in itself, was effective to pass good title. Halpern, J., concurs in result solely on the additional ground stated in the memorandum. (Appeal from judgment of Onondaga Trial Term dismissing the complaint.) Present — Williams, P. J., Bastow, Halpern, MeClusky and Henry, JJ.

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

Judgment unanimously affirmed, without costs of this appeal to any party. Certain additional findings ma(le. Memorandum: We find no jurisdictional errors in the tax foreclosure proceeding based upon failure to pay 1953 taxes. Therefore, Snivel Realty Corporation has title to the property to the [959]*959exclusion of the plaintiff, Sanderson, and the judgment should be affirmed. However, there is an additional ground for affirmance and that is that the defendant Elman, Snivel Realty 'Corporation’s grantor, received a tax deed in 1958 .based upon a 1948 default. There is no defect in that proceeding. We find that this deed, in itself, was effective to pass good title. Halpern, J., concurs in result solely on the additional ground stated in the memorandum. (Appeal from judgment of Onondaga Trial Term dismissing the complaint.) Present — Williams, P. J., Bastow, Halpern, MeClusky and Henry, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

18 A.D.2d 958, 238 N.Y.S.2d 168, 1963 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4334, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/sanderson-v-elman-nyappdiv-1963.