Nyctl 2011-A Trust v. Keane

• Decision Date: 01 May 2019
• Docket Number: Index No. 11009/12,2016–07857
• Citation: 97 N.Y.S.3d 504 (Mem),172 A.D.3d 735
• Parties: NYCTL 2011–A TRUST, et al., Respondents, v. Wendell KEANE, et al., Appellants, et al., Defendants.
• Court: New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division

172 A.D.3d 735

97 N.Y.S.3d 504 (Mem)

NYCTL 2011–A TRUST, et al., Respondents,

v.Wendell KEANE, et al., Appellants, et al., Defendants.

2016–07857

Index No. 11009/12

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

Argued—January 22, 2019

May 1, 2019

Felton & Associates, Brooklyn, N.Y. (Regina Felton of counsel), for appellants.

Phillips Lytle LLP, Rochester, N.Y. (Anthony J. Iacchetta of counsel), for respondents.

JOHN M. LEVENTHAL, J.P., BETSY BARROS, FRANCESCA E. CONNOLLY, ANGELA G. IANNACCI, JJ.

DECISION & ORDER

In an action to foreclose a tax lien, the defendants Wendell Keane and Annette Ross Keane appeal from an order and judgment of foreclosure and sale (one paper) of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Mark I. Partnow, J.), dated May 26, 2016. The order and judgment of foreclosure and sale granted the plaintiffs' motion, inter alia, to confirm a referee's report and for a judgment of foreclosure and sale, confirmed the referee's report, and directed the sale of the subject premises.

ORDERED that the order and judgment of foreclosure and sale is affirmed, with costs.

In this action to foreclose a tax lien, the plaintiffs established their entitlement to a judgment of foreclosure and sale and confirmation of the referee's report (see Bank of N.Y. Mellon Trust Co. v. Loodus, 160 A.D.3d 797, 798, 76 N.Y.S.3d 89 ). Contrary to the contention of the defendants Wendell Keane and Annette Ross Keane (hereinafter together the defendants), the documentary evidence they submitted in opposition to the plaintiffs' motion failed to establish that they satisfied the subject tax lien (see NYCTL 1997–1 Trust v. Denis, 147 A.D.3d 966, 967, 48 N.Y.S.3d 179 ).

The defendants' remaining contentions are improperly raised for the first time on appeal and, therefore, are not properly before this Court.

LEVENTHAL, J.P., BARROS, CONNOLLY and IANNACCI, JJ., concur.