You are here: / / NOTING THE SPLIT OF AUTHORITY BETWEEN THE 2ND AND 4TH DEPARTMENTS, THE...
, ,

NOTING THE SPLIT OF AUTHORITY BETWEEN THE 2ND AND 4TH DEPARTMENTS, THE 3RD DEPARTMENT SIDED WITH THE 2ND AND HELD THAT, WHERE THE PROPERTY OWNER IS DECEASED, JURISDICTION OVER THE PERSONAL REPRESENTATIVE OF THE DECEDENT IS REQUIRED FOR AN IN REM TAX FORECLOSURE PROCEEDING (THIRD DEPT).

The Third Department, in a complex tax foreclosure case involving many other parties and many other issues, in a full-fledged opinion by Justice Lynch, over a dissent, determined the city could not proceed against property owned by a deceased party without jurisdiction over the personal representative of the decedent’s estate. The court noted a split of authority between the Second and Fourth Departments. The Fourth Department held that a tax foreclosure is an in rem proceeding (against the property) and the death of the owner is therefore irrelevant. The Third Department sided with the contrary ruling by the Second Department(requiring jurisdiction over the personal representative). The two-justice dissent argued the Fourth Department’s approach is the correct one:

Supreme Court properly granted Paul’s motion to vacate the default judgment. Paul is the adult son of Paywantie Allicock (hereinafter decedent), who purchased the property at 82 James Street in the City of Schenectady, Schenectady County (hereinafter the property) in 2004 and resided there with her son until she passed away in May 2015. Paul continues to reside at the premises. At issue is whether petitioner duly acquired jurisdiction over the property for purposes of this RPTL article 11 in rem foreclosure proceeding, commenced in April 2019. Pertinent here, there is a split between the Second and Fourth Departments as to whether a tax foreclosure proceeding may include a parcel where the owner is deceased at the time the action is commenced (compare Matter of Foreclosure of Tax Liens, 165 AD3d at 1116, with Hetelekides v County of Ontario, 193 AD3d 1414, 1419-1420 [2021]). We ascribe to the viewpoint expressed by the Second Department that such a proceeding may not be commenced until such time as the petitioner first acquires jurisdiction over the personal representative of the decedent’s estate … . Matter of City of Schenectady, 2021 NY Slip Op 06120, Third Dept 11-10-21

 

You might also like
CLAIMANT HAD THE RIGHT TO CROSS-EXAMINE THE CARRIER’S CONSULTANT, WHO DETERMINED CLAIMANT SUFFERED A 40% SCHEDULE LOSS OF USE, DESPITE THE FACT CLAIMANT NEVER FILED A COMPETING MEDICAL OPINION (THIRD DEPT)
QUESTIONS OF FACT WHETHER NEGLIGENT SUPERVISION OF PLAINTIFF KINDERGARTEN STUDENT IN GYM CLASS WAS THE PROXIMATE CAUSE OF HER INJURY (THIRD DEPT).
THE EDUCATION LAW PROVISIONS AND RELATED REGULATIONS (1) REQUIRING NONPUBLIC SCHOOLS TO PROVIDE EDUCATION EQUIVALENT TO THAT PROVIDED BY PUBLIC SCHOOLS, AND (2) ALLOWING PUBLIC FUNDING TO BE CURTAILED AND REQUIRING STUDENTS TO ATTEND A DIFFERENT SCHOOL IF THE EQUIVALENCY TEST IS NOT MET ARE VALID AND ENFORCEABLE; THERE WAS A DISSENT (THIRD DEPT).
HERE DEFENDANTS SOUGHT TO USE PLAINTIFF’S INDICTMENT AND PLEA TRANSCRIPT IN THEIR DEFENSE OF PLAINTIFF’S CIVIL ACTION; THE ISSUE IS WHETHER THOSE RECORDS WERE SUBJECT TO THE SEALING ORDER ISSUED BY COUNTY COURT; IF THE RECORDS WERE COURT RECORDS AND PROCURED FROM THE COURT, THE SEALING ORDER WOULD NOT EXTEND TO THEM; IF THE RECORDS WERE PROCURED FROM LAW ENFORCEMENT SOURCES, THE SEALING ORDER APPLIES; MATTER REMITTED (THIRD DEPT).
DEFENDANTS ARGUED PLAINTIFF WAS NOT AN EMPLOYEE IN THE WORKERS’ COMPENSATION PROCEEDING; HERE THE DEFENDANTS ARGUED PLAINTIFF WAS AN EMPLOYEE AND HIS REMEDY WAS LIMITED TO WORKERS’ COMPENSATION; THE DOCTRINE OF JUDICIAL ESTOPPEL PRECLUDED THE WORKERS’ COMPENSATION AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE IN THIS ACTION (THIRD DEPT).
PROPER FOUNDATION HAD BEEN LAID, FACEBOOK MESSAGES BETWEEN MOTHER AND CHILD SHOULD HAVE BEEN ALLOWED IN EVIDENCE IN THIS ABANDONMENT PROCEEDING.
Termination of Deputy Sheriff by Sheriff after Hearing Officer Recommended Suspension Upheld
THE JUDGE’S PROVIDING ERRONEOUS INFORMATION ABOUT THE MAXIMUM SENTENCE DEFENDANT WAS FACING NEED NOT BE PRESERVED FOR APPEAL AND RENDERED THE GUILTY PLEA INVOLUNTARY (THIRD 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 © 2025 New York Appellate Digest, Inc.
Site by CurlyHost | Privacy Policy

THE COURT SHOULD NOT HAVE CONDITIONED ITS SANDOVAL RULING ON WHETHER DEFENSE... CLAIMANT, A MEMBER OF THE CITY BOARD OF ASSESSMENT AND REVIEW (BAR) HIRED TO...