You are here: / / THE REAL PROPERTY TAX LAW (RPTL), NOT THE CPLR, CONTROLS THE COMMENCEMENT...
, , ,

THE REAL PROPERTY TAX LAW (RPTL), NOT THE CPLR, CONTROLS THE COMMENCEMENT OF A REAL PROPERTY TAX FORECLOSURE PROCEEDING (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing Supreme Court, determined the city in this property tax foreclosure proceeding properly followed the procedure for commencing the action prescribed in the Real Property Tax Law (RPTL) (as opposed to the CPLR procedure):

Real Property Tax Law provides that a proceeding for the foreclosure of tax liens in rem shall be commenced in the manner provided in Real Property Tax Law article 11, title 3 (see id. § 1120). Title 3 sets forth specific requirements for public notice by publication and personal notice to owners and other persons with a right, title, or interest in affected properties (see id. §§ 1124, 1125). RPTL 1125(3)(c) provides that the service required by that section “shall be deemed to be equivalent to the service of a notice of petition pursuant to [CPLR 403]” … . Thus, the City was required to comply with the service requirements set forth in the Real Property Tax Law, rather than those set forth in the CPLR … . The City established that it satisfied the notice and service requirements set forth in the Real Property Tax Law and that it is entitled to a default judgment with respect to the parcels of real property identified in the City’s motion (see RPTL 1131, 1136[3]). Matter of Foreclosure of Tax Liens (City of Newburgh), 2023 NY Slip Op 04381, Second Dept 8-23-23

Practice Point: The procedure for commencing a real property tax foreclosure action is prescribed by the Real Property Tax Law (RPTL), not the CPLR.

 

You might also like
THE PERSON WHO ASSAULTED PLAINTIFF WAS THE OWNER OF THE LAW FIRM PLAINTIFF WORKED FOR; PLAINTIFF COULD RECOVER WORKERS’ COMPENSATION BENEFITS FROM THE LAW FIRM AND DAMAGES FOR ASSAULT AND BATTERY FROM THE OWNER, WHO WAS A COEMPLOYEE (SECOND DEPT).
MOTHER’S PETITION TO HAVE HER CHILD RETURNED AFTER TEMPORARY REMOVAL SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED, EVEN THOUGH THE CHILD HAD BEEN RETURNED AT THE TIME OF THE APPEAL, THE ISSUE IS NOT ACADEMIC BECAUSE OF THE STIGMA ASSOCIATED WITH REMOVAL OF A CHILD (SECOND DEPT).
Absence of a Safety Device Which Would Reduce the Functionality of a Table Saw is Not a Design Defect–Criteria Explained
ALTHOUGH PLAINTIFF WAS WORKING ON DEFENDANT’S PRIVATE RESIDENCE WHEN INJURED, THE HOMEOWNER’S EXEMPTION TO LABOR LAW 241(6) LIABILITY MAY NOT APPLY BECAUSE PLAINTIFF WAS EMPLOYED AS A CARPENTER BY DEFENDANT AND DEFENDANT MAY HAVE BEEN DIRECTING AND SUPERVISING THE WORK; SIMILARLY, DEFENDANT WAS NOT ENTITLED TO DISMISSAL OF THE LABOR LAW 200 AND COMMON LAW NEGLIGENCE CAUSES OF ACTION (SECOND DEPT).
THE JUDGE SHOULD NOT HAVE DELEGATED THE COURT’S AUTHORITY TO DETERMINE MOTHER’S PARENTAL ACCESS; THE JUDGE LEFT IT TO MOTHER AND HER CHILD TO DETERMINE MOTHER’S PARENTAL ACCESS (SECOND DEPT).
NEWS REPORTS CONNECTING PLAINTIFF TO AN ATTEMPTED RAPE ABSOLUTELY PRIVILEGED UNDER CIVIL RIGHTS LAW, REPORTS ACCURATELY REFLECTED INFORMATION PROVIDED BY THE POLICE.
HERE PLAINTIFF CORPORATION, RC, DID NOT EXIST WHEN THE REAL ESTATE CONTRACT WAS ENTERED AND WAS NOT FORMED FOR SEVERAL YEARS UNTIL JUST BEFORE THE INSTANT LITIGATION; BECAUSE DEFENDANT DEALT WITH RC AS A CORPORATION FOR YEARS AND RECEIVED SOME BENEFIT FROM THE CONTRACT, THE DOCTRINE OF “CORPORATION BY ESTOPPEL” PROHIBITED DEFENDANT FROM AVOIDING ITS OBLIGATIONS UNDER THE CONTRACT BY ARGUING A NONEXISTENT CORPORATION CANNOT ENTER A CONTRACT (SECOND DEPT).
STRICT COMPLIANCE WITH THE NOTICE OF FORECLOSURE PROVISIONS IN RPAPL 1304 IS REQUIRED; HERE THE BANK FAILED TO SHOW THAT IT SENT RPAPL 1304 NOTICES ADDRESSED INDIVIDUALLY TO DEFENDANTS (SECOND 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

PETITIONER WAS ENTITLED TO A HEARING TO DETERMINE WHETHER SHE TOOK ADEQUATE... QUESTIONS OF FACT WHETHER PLAINTIFF WAS DOING REPAIR WORK OR ROUTINE MAINTENANCE...