TaiLexi AI U.S. Case Law

In re City of New York

In the Matter of the City of New York, Norend Realty Corp., Intervenor-Appellant

In re City of N.Y., 20 A.D.2d 925 (1964)
Download
Format
Include

Star paging (*137) is kept for pin cites.

Court
Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · State Appellate Courts
Decided
April 27, 1964
Citations
20 A.D.2d 925249 N.Y.S.2d 8491964 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3948249 N.Y.S.2d 6991964 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3947

Opinion of the Court

Text extracted by OCR from a scanned original; check the original for exact wording.

In an action in rem by the City of New York to foreclose delinquent tax liens on certain real property owned by Norend Realty Corp. and thereafter conveyed by it to another corporation subject to a purchase-money mortgage, the said Norend Realty Corp. appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County, dated January 15, 1964, which denied its motion: (a) for leave to intervene in the action and to file its petition to redeem the property; (b) to remove the property from sale at public auction; and (e) to set aside, for lack of jurisdiction, the judgment of foreclosure (entered by default) and the deed given pursuant thereto. Order affirmed, with $10 costs and disbursements. In our opinion, the only remedy available to appellant is by plenary action to set aside the deed, and not by motion in the foreclosure action (Town of Somers v. Covey, 2 N Y 2d 250, cert. den. sub nom. Covey v. Town of Somers, 354 U. S. 916 ). In any event, the mailing of the notice of foreclosure to “ Gilam ”, instead of the Gilman, the surname of the then sole stockholder of Norend Realty Corp., at her correct address, and its actual receipt; and the mailing of the notice to “ Moreno ” (instead of to “Norend”) Realty Corp. at the address of the property, were sufficient, under the circumstances of this case, to survive Nor end’s attack on the jurisdiction of the court and the regularity of the proceedings (City of New York v. Stolpensky, 1 A D 2d 95; City of New York v. Lynch, 281 App. Div. 1038 , affd. 306 N. Y. 809 ; Hawley v. City of New York, 283 App. Div. 882 ). Beldock, P. J., Kleinfeld, Christ, Brennan and Hopkins, JJ., concur.

How later courts describe this case

No later court has written an explanatory parenthetical about this case yet.

1982: 11990: 11992: 119822026peak 1982 · 1

Relies on it most ⓘ

  1. City of Yonkers v. G.H. Clark & Son, Inc.159 A.D.2d 535 (1990)
  2. Pompe v. City of Yonkers179 A.D.2d 628 (1992)
  3. RPL Realty Coup. v. Commissioner of Finance117 Misc. 2d 321 (N.Y. Sup. Ct. 1982)

Most recent

  1. Pompe v. City of Yonkers179 A.D.2d 628 (1992)
  2. City of Yonkers v. G.H. Clark & Son, Inc.159 A.D.2d 535 (1990)
  3. RPL Realty Coup. v. Commissioner of Finance117 Misc. 2d 321 (N.Y. Sup. Ct. 1982)

Citing references are not a citator: they show that a later opinion cites this case, not whether it followed, distinguished, or overruled it. Check negative history before relying on this case.

Authorities cited 4

DepthCaseCited by
City of N.Y. v. Lynch, 281 A.D. 1038 (1953) 10
City of N.Y. v. Lynch, 118 N.E.2d 821 (N.Y. 1954) 7
Teplitsky v. City of N.Y., 283 A.D. 882 (1954) 5
Covey v. Town of Somers, 354 U.S. 916 (1957) 1

Keyboard shortcuts

/Focus the search box
j kNext / previous result
EnterOpen the selected result
xAdd / remove the selected result from the download list
n pNext / previous search term in a case
cCopy the citation of the current case
+ −Larger / smaller reading text
?Show this list