Tax Foreclosure Action No. 34 v. City of New York

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Tax Foreclosure Action No. 34 v. City of New York

189 A.D.2d 681, 592 N.Y.S.2d 374, 1993 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 379

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

DecidedJanuary 19, 1993

StatusPublished

This text of 189 A.D.2d 681 (Tax Foreclosure Action No. 34 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

Tax Foreclosure Action No. 34 v. City of New York, 189 A.D.2d 681, 592 N.Y.S.2d 374, 1993 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 379 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1993).

Pincite

Opinion

Order, Supreme Court, Bronx County (Lewis R. Friedman, J.), entered October 8,1991, which denied [682]*682petitioner’s application to vacate respondent City of New York’s title to two parcels of real property acquired pursuant to an in rem judgment of foreclosure, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

After the judgment of foreclosure was entered and the deed transferring title to the City was duly recorded, the application of petitioner and his co-petitioner to release the City’s interest pursuant to Administrative Code of the City of New York § 11-424 was approved upon the condition that they pay the arrears and charges within 30 days of billing. Having failed to do so, petitioner will not now be heard to complain of any procedural defects in the underlying foreclosure action (see, Matter of Tax Foreclosure No. 35, 71 NY2d 863, 864-865).

We do not reach the additional procedural issues raised by Corporation Counsel on this appeal. Concur—Sullivan, J. P., Wallach, Kupferman and Kassal, JJ.

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

Order, Supreme Court, Bronx County (Lewis R. Friedman, J.), entered October 8,1991, which denied [682]*682petitioner’s application to vacate respondent City of New York’s title to two parcels of real property acquired pursuant to an in rem judgment of foreclosure, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

After the judgment of foreclosure was entered and the deed transferring title to the City was duly recorded, the application of petitioner and his co-petitioner to release the City’s interest pursuant to Administrative Code of the City of New York § 11-424 was approved upon the condition that they pay the arrears and charges within 30 days of billing. Having failed to do so, petitioner will not now be heard to complain of any procedural defects in the underlying foreclosure action (see, Matter of Tax Foreclosure No. 35, 71 NY2d 863, 864-865).

We do not reach the additional procedural issues raised by Corporation Counsel on this appeal. Concur—Sullivan, J. P., Wallach, Kupferman and Kassal, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

189 A.D.2d 681, 592 N.Y.S.2d 374, 1993 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 379, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/tax-foreclosure-action-no-34-v-city-of-new-york-nyappdiv-1993.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack