You are here: / / THE COUNTY DID NOT SUBMIT SUFFICIENT PROOF OF COMPLIANCE WITH THE NOTICE...

THE COUNTY DID NOT SUBMIT SUFFICIENT PROOF OF COMPLIANCE WITH THE NOTICE REQUIREMENTS OF RPTL 1125 IN THIS PROPERTY TAX FORECLOSURE CASE (THIRD DEPT).

The Third Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined the county (petitioner) in this real property tax foreclosure case did not demonstrate the respondent received notice of the foreclosure as required by RPTL 1125 and a recent Court of Appeals ruling:

In James B. Nutter & Co. v County of Saratoga (__ NY3d ___, 2023 NY Slip Op 01469 [2023], revg 195 AD3d 1359 [3d Dept 2021]), the Court ruled that RPTL 1125 (1) (b) (i) contains no presumption of service and that “an interested party may create a factual issue as to whether the taxing authority has complied with the requirements of RPTL 1125 (1) (b) . . . despite the taxing authority’s submission of the ‘affidavit[s] of mailing’ mandated by [RPTL] 1125 (3) (a) and evidence that no mailings were returned” (id. at *3). Here, petitioner’s attorney avers in support of its motion for summary judgment that “affidavits documenting compliance with all RPTL requirements for this proceeding have been publicly filed with the [c]ounty [c]lerk as a part of the judgment roll therein; and, assuming without conceding, that any noticing defects as to [a]nswerants occurred, by service of an [a]nswer therein [a]nswerants concedes actual notice of the pendency of this proceeding and its applicability to the above said parcel, thereby as a matter of law obviating any such defects.” Although RPTL 1125 (1) (b) “contains no requirement of actual notice and evidence of the failure to receive notice is, by itself, insufficient to demonstrate noncompliance” (id.), this generic language failed to affirmatively establish compliance with the statutory mailing requirements as it failed to establish that the notice of foreclosure was mailed to respondent’s actual mailing address or the last address listed in petitioner’s records and that the records had been searched to verify that the mailings to respondent were not returned … . Matter of County of Albany (Johnson), 2023 NY Slip Op 02564, Third Dept 5-11-23

Practice Point: Here the county failed to prove strict compliance with the notice requirements of RPTL 1125 precluding summary judgment in this real property tax foreclosure case.

 

You might also like
DEFENDANT SHOT ANOTHER HUNTER AND WAS CHARGED WITH AND CONVICTED OF (RECKLESS) ASSAULT SECOND, DEFENSE REQUEST FOR A JURY INSTRUCTION ON (NEGLIGENT) ASSAULT THIRD SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED, NEW TRIAL ORDERED (THIRD DEPT).
Workers’ Compensation Board’s Recovery of a Portion of Benefits Paid by the Board to an Injured Employee from the Special Disability Fund Did Not Operate to Satisfy the Board’s Judgment Against the Employer Re: those Benefits (Which the Employer Failed to Pay)
PLAINTIFF, WHO IS FIVE FOOT SEVEN, WAS INJURED WHEN A SIX FOOT HIGH STACK OF SCAFFOLDS PARTIALLY FELL ON HIM, THE HEIGHT DIFFERENTIAL WAS DEEMED DE MINIMUS, DEFENDANT’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT IN THIS LABOR LAW 240 (1) ACTION WAS PROPERLY GRANTED (THIRD DEPT).
THE BOARD FAILED TO ADEQUATELY EXPLAIN ITS DECISION TO DENY COVERAGE OF MEDICAL BILLS ON THE GROUND THEY WERE NOT CAUSALLY RELATED TO CLAIMANT’S MEDICAL CONDITION, MAKING APPELLATE REVIEW IMPOSSIBLE; MATTER REMITTED (THIRD DEPT).
THE “PRECAUTIONARY ADDENDUM,” ALTHOUGH REPEALED, STILL MAY BE APPLIED TO WILLS OF PERSONS WHO DIED BEFORE MARCH 1, 1964, TO PRECLUDE INHERITANCE BY ADOPTED CHILDREN IF THE ACT OF ADOPTION WAS DESIGNED TO CUT OFF OTHER BENEFICIARIES; HERE THE SHARES OF THE OTHER BENEFICIARIES WERE DIMINISHED BUT NOT CUT OFF BY THE INCLUSION OF THE ADOPTED CHILDREN; THEREFORE THE PRECAUTIONARY ADDENDUM DID NOT APPLY (THIRD DEPT).
THERE IS A QUESTION OF FACT WHETHER A PRIOR OWNER OF DEFENDANT’S PROPERTY WAS AWARE OF PLAINTIFF’S INSTALLATION OF A SEPTIC SYSTEM ON DEFENDANT’S PROPERTY GIVING RISE TO A PRESCRIPTIVE EASEMENT (THIRD DEPT).
CHILD’S TESTIMONY ALLEGING SEXUAL ABUSE NOT CORROBORATED, SEXUAL ABUSE ADJUDICATION REVERSED.
CLAIMANT, A MEMBER OF THE CITY BOARD OF ASSESSMENT AND REVIEW (BAR) HIRED TO REVIEW THE FAIRNESS OF PROPERTY TAX ASSESSMENTS, WAS NOT AN EMPLOYEE OF THE CITY AND THEREFORE WAS NOT ELIBIBLE FOR UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE BENEFITS (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 © 2026 New York Appellate Digest, Inc.
Site by CurlyHost | Privacy Policy

DEFENDANT PROPERTY OWNER DID NOT DEMONSTRATE WHEN THE AREA WHERE PLAINTIFF SLIPPED... A LOCAL LAW WHICH CURTAILED THE POWER OF AN ELECTED OFFICER TO ACT WAS DEEMED...