You are here: / / PERSONAL PROPERTY LOCATED ON REAL PROPERTY SUBJECT TO A TAX FORECLOSURE...
,

PERSONAL PROPERTY LOCATED ON REAL PROPERTY SUBJECT TO A TAX FORECLOSURE WAS NOT ABANDONED BY THE OWNER OF THE PERSONAL PROPERTY (FOURTH DEPT).

The Fourth Department, in a full-fledged opinion by Justice Troutman, reversing Supreme Court, determined respondent’s application to vacate “that portion of a judgment of [tax} foreclosure that deemed respondent’s personal property located at a foreclosed property to be abandoned to petitioner” should have been vacated. The petitioner-city foreclosed on real property which was not owned by the respondent. The respondent owned hundreds of auto parts which were on the foreclosed property:

… [W]e agree with respondent that the court lacked jurisdiction to dispose of personal property. Supreme Court may exercise in rem jurisdiction over real property in a proceeding to foreclose a tax lien (see RPTL 1120 et seq.). A proceeding of that kind “produces a judgment binding only on those who have been named as parties and duly notified—the usual understanding of what due process requires”… . ” [T]he failure to substantially comply with the requirement of providing the taxpayer with proper notice constitutes a jurisdictional defect which operates to invalidate the sale or prevent the passage of title’ “… . Here, petitioner did not provide notice to respondent with respect to respondent’s personal property and could not have done so. The notice procedures in the statute relate to real property only, not personal property (see RPTL 1122-1125). Moreover, RPTL article 11 does not contain a mechanism by which the tax district may obtain a party’s personal property upon that party’s default. In the event of a default, the tax district is awarded “possession of any parcel of real property described in the petition of foreclosure” and is entitled to a deed conveying to the tax district full and complete title to the parcel (RPTL 1136 [3] [emphasis added]). Upon the execution of the deed, any person with a right or interest “in or upon such parcel shall be barred and forever foreclosed” of that right or interest (id. [emphasis added]).

Nothing in RPTL article 11 confers upon Supreme Court in rem jurisdiction over personal property. Matter of The Foreclosure of Tax Liens By Proceeding In Rem Pursuant To Art. 11 of The Real Prop. Tax Law By The City of Utica (Suprunchik), 2019 NY Slip Op 01020, Fourth Dept 2-8-19

 

You might also like
“Nailing” of Petition on Next to Last Day for Service, and Mailing on the Last Day, Was Sufficient—Respondent, Who Initially Declined Designation as a Candidate, Could Not Subsequently Accept Designation as a Substitute Candidate
THE MERE PRESENCE OF A REINSTATEMENT CLAUSE IN THE MORTGAGE, WHICH ESSENTIALLY ALLOWS A BORROWER IN DEFAULT TO PAY THE ARREARS AND STOP THE ACCELERATION OF THE DEBT, DOES NOT AFFECT OR IMPEDE THE ACCELERATION OF THE DEBT WHEN A FORECLOSURE ACTION IS STARTED; THE DEBT HERE WAS ACCELERATED WHEN THE FIRST FORECLOSURE ACTION WAS COMMENCED IN 2009 RENDERING THE INSTANT FORECLOSURE ACTION TIME-BARRED (FOURTH DEPT).
County Has a Duty to Protect Jail Inmates from the Foreseeable Assaults by Other Inmates
PETITIONER SOUGHT TO DEMONSTRATE THAT HIS DECEASED MOTHER DID NOT HAVE THE CAPACITY TO EXECUTE A DOCUMENT DESIGNATING RESPONDENT AS HER AGENT TO CONTROL THE DISPOSITION OF HER REMAINS; PETITIONER SUBMITTED PROOF HIS MOTHER HAD BEEN DIAGNOSED WITH DEMENTIA, BUT DEMENTIA IS NOT THE EQUIVALENT OF INCOMPETENCE OR INCAPACITY; THE PETITION SHOULD HAVE BEEN DISMISSED (FOURTH DEPT).
DEFENDANT SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN SENTENCED AS A SECOND FELONY OFFENDER BASED UPON A PRIOR FEDERAL DRUG CONSPIRACY CONVICTION; THE ISSUE FALLS WITHIN A NARROW EXCEPTION TO THE PRESERVATION REQUIREMENT (FOURTH DEPT).
UNDER CRITERIA RECENTLY ANNOUNCED BY THE COURT OF APPEALS, GRANDPARENTS HAD STANDING TO CONTEST MOTHER’S PETITION FOR CUSTODY.
PROOF OF STANDING DID NOT MEET CRITERIA OF THE BUSINESS RECORDS EXCEPTION TO THE HEARSAY RULE, BANK’S SUMMARY JUDGMENT MOTION SHOULD HAVE BEEN DENIED.
THE JURY REQUESTED A READBACK OF BOTH THE DIRECT AND THE CROSS; THE JUDGE ONLY PROVIDED A READBACK OF THE DIRECT AND ERRONEOUSLY INDICATED THE TOPIC WAS NOT ADDRESSED ON CROSS; NEW TRIAL ORDERED (FOURTH DEPT). ​

Categories

Sign Up for the Mailing List to Be Notified When the Site Is Updated.

  • This field is for validation purposes and should be left unchanged.

Copyright © 2026 New York Appellate Digest, Inc.
Site by CurlyHost | Privacy Policy

PLAINTIFF’S ACTION WAS NOT FRIVOLOUS WITHIN THE MEANING OF 42 USC 1988,... EXTENSION OF TIME TO FILE A MOTION TO VACATE A TAX FORECLOSURE JUDGMENT SHOULD...