In the Matter of The Foreclosure of Tax Liens By County of Sullivan.County of Sullivan

• Decision Date: 31 March 2011
• Parties: In the Matter of the FORECLOSURE OF TAX LIENS BY COUNTY OF SULLIVAN.County of Sullivan, Appellant;Yong Tuk Yun, Respondent.
• Court: New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division

82 A.D.3d 1560
920 N.Y.S.2d 450
2011 N.Y. Slip Op. 02516

In the Matter of the FORECLOSURE OF TAX LIENS BY COUNTY OF SULLIVAN.County of Sullivan, Appellant;Yong Tuk Yun, Respondent.

Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Third Department, New York.

March 31, 2011.

[920 N.Y.S.2d 451]

Samuel S. Yasgur, County Attorney (Karen Mannio of counsel), for appellant.Shawn Law Offices, Monticello (Henri Shawn of counsel), for respondent.Before: LAHTINEN, J.P., KAVANAGH, McCARTHY and GARRY, JJ.GARRY, J.

[82 A.D.3d 1560] Appeal from an order of the County Court of Sullivan County (LaBuda, J.), entered January 4, 2010, which, in a proceeding pursuant to RPTL article 11, granted respondent's motion to vacate a default judgment of foreclosure entered against him.

Petitioner commenced this real property tax foreclosure proceeding against respondent, among others, due to his failure to pay real property taxes levied for 2007 on his 50–acre parcel of unimproved land in the Town of Tusten, Sullivan County. It [82 A.D.3d 1561] is undisputed that respondent did not pay the 2007 taxes, that petitioner complied with all applicable notice and procedural requirements ( see generally RPTL art 11), and that respondent actually received the notice and petition of foreclosure in October 2008. Respondent, whose command of the English language is limited, did not open the notice. Although he had previously obtained assistance from a friend in translating his mail, he did not seek assistance in this instance; instead, he testified that he disregarded the notice, believing it to be a “bill letter,” and shortly thereafter departed for a lengthy business trip in Korea, leaving no forwarding address.

In February 2009, a default judgment of foreclosure was entered. Upon respondent's return from Korea in early June 2009, he opened a letter from petitioner dated March 2, 2009, advising him that petitioner had acquired title to the property and that it would be sold at auction on June 10, 2009 if he did not pursue petitioner's repurchase option program. Respondent immediately moved to enjoin petitioner from proceeding with the auction and to vacate the default judgment. County Court issued an order staying the auction. After a hearing, the court granted respondent's motion to vacate the default judgment, directed respondent to make payment to petitioner, and required petitioner to reconvey the property to respondent. Petitioner appeals.

Respondent's motion to vacate the judgment of...