Tax Foreclosure No. 35, Matter of
| Decision Date | 29 March 1988 |
| Citation | 527 N.Y.S.2d 747,71 N.Y.2d 863 |
| Parties | , 522 N.E.2d 1044 In the Matter of TAX FORECLOSURE NO. 35. City of New York, Respondent; Samson Wilson, Appellant. |
| Court | New York Court of Appeals Court of Appeals |
The order of the Appellate Division, 127 A.D.2d 220, 514 N.Y.S.2d 390, should be affirmed, with costs.
Appellant property owner in this in rem tax foreclosure action by the City seeks to set aside a default judgment and redeem his former property, contending that the Administrative Code of the City of New York §§ D17-16.0, D17-17.0 (now §§ 11-416, 11-417) denied him due process by the failure to provide for actual notice to all property owners prior to tax foreclosure ( see, Matter of McCann v. Scaduto, 71 N.Y.2d 164, 524 N.Y.S.2d 398, 519 N.E.2d 309). Petitioner's challenge must be rejected, however, and the Appellate Division order affirmed, without reaching the constitutional issue. After learning of the judgment of foreclosure, appellant requested of the City essentially the same relief he now seeks of the courts. Appellant was advised that his request had been granted and the City's interest in the property would be released if, within a given time, he paid the taxes, interest and penalties. For nearly two years thereafter appellant, however, took no action to make the payments or redeem the property. Having failed to avail himself of the right to redeem granted upon his request, appellant cannot now be heard to complain of a deprivation of due process in the forfeiture of the property ( see, e.g. Selzer v. Baker, 295 N.Y. 145, 149, 65 N.E.2d 752).
TITONE, J., taking no part.
On review of submissions pursuant to section 500.4 of the Rules of the Court of Appeals (22 NYCRR 500.4), order affirmed, with costs, in a memorandum. Certified question answered in the affirmative.
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Small Engine Shop, Inc. v. Cascio
... ... Because we interpret the statute simply as a supplement to Louisiana's preexisting constructive notice scheme in foreclosure actions, we reverse and remand for further proceedings. 1 ... In Part I, we discuss the facts and explicate the statutory scheme ... Facts matter, and factual matrices differ. As the district court interpreted the Louisiana statute, the entire content of state actors' reasonable diligence in ... ...
-
ISCA Enterprises v. City of New York
...Christian Assn. v. Rochester Pure Waters Dist., 37 N.Y.2d 371, 375, 372 N.Y.S.2d 633, 334 N.E.2d 586). Matter of Tax Foreclosure No. 35, 71 N.Y.2d 863, 527 N.Y.S.2d 747, 522 N.E.2d 1044, is not to the contrary. There, the property had been released to its former owner on payment of taxes, i......
-
King Ctr. Corp. v. City of Middletown (In re King Ctr. Corp.)
...flawed procedures and processes, including claims of inadequate notice. As examples, it points to In re Tax Foreclosure No. 35 , 71 N.Y.2d 863, 865, 527 N.Y.S.2d 747, 522 N.E.2d 1044 (1988), where the court affirmed the denial of the petitioner's claim that the notice provided in an in rem ......
-
Township of Jefferson v. Block 447A, Lot 10
... ... New Jersey Constitutions require that notice of a municipality's action to foreclose an owner's equity of redemption under the In Rem Tax Foreclosure Act (the Act), N.J.S.A. 54:5-104.29 et seq., be mailed to the owner whose name and address appear[548 A.2d 522] on the municipality's tax rolls, ... We conclude that a person's entitlement to the notice required by due process cannot be conditioned on the requirement that he request it. Matter of Foreclosure of Tax Liens by Erie, 103 A.D.2d 636, 481 N.Y.S.2d 547 (App.Div.1984). Cf. Phillipsburg v. Block 22, Lots 14, 15, 16, 218 N.J.Super ... ...