From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Challette, Inc. v. Leeds

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Jun 26, 1967
28 A.D.2d 717 (N.Y. App. Div. 1967)

Opinion

June 26, 1967


Order and judgment (one paper) of the Supreme Court, Suffolk County, dated August 3, 1966, which granted plaintiff's motion for summary judgment and denied defendant's cross application for summary judgment, affirmed with $10 costs and disbursements. This is an action under article 15 of the Real Property Actions and Proceedings Law to compel the determination of claims to real property in Suffolk County. Plaintiff is the grantee of the record owner; defendant claims under a tax deed from the County Treasurer of Suffolk County. The County Treasurer has stipulated to be bound by the order herein (see, Costa v. Harris, 26 A.D.2d 933). The property in question, described as Lot 8 on a map filed in 1889, was assessed through the years solely as "described" property, as part of a larger parcel, until the tax year 1958-59. In that year, Lot 8 was erroneously assessed twice: once as "described" property and once as "subdivided" property. Taxes on the "described" property were paid; no taxes were paid on the "subdivided" property; and eventually Lot 8 was sold to defendant for nonpayment of the latter taxes. In our opinion the tax deed to defendant was void "because a tax lien against a parcel of land, the taxes on which are paid, is void" ( Middle Is. Land Water Co. v. Hunter, 259 App. Div. 294, 297; cf. Cameron Estates v. Deering, 308 N.Y. 24, 30). Moreover, we are of the opinion that the assessment of Lot 8 as "described" property was not invalid. Under section 1 of the Suffolk County Tax Act (L. 1920, ch. 311, as amd. by L. 1958, ch. 95), we find no requirement for a differentiation in the assessment rolls between "described" and "subdivided" property (cf. People ex rel. Bronx Parkway Comm. v. Common Council, 229 N.Y. 1, 9-10); and it is undisputed that the description in the assessment roll was sufficiently accurate to identify the parcel (cf. McCoun v. Pierpont, 232 N.Y. 66, 69; Woodland Shores v. County of Suffolk, 269 App. Div. 780). Ughetta, Acting P.J., Christ, Brennan, Hopkins and Munder, JJ., concur.


Summaries of

Challette, Inc. v. Leeds

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Jun 26, 1967
28 A.D.2d 717 (N.Y. App. Div. 1967)
Case details for

Challette, Inc. v. Leeds

Case Details

Full title:CHALLETTE, INC., Respondent, v. ELIZABETH LEEDS, Appellant

Court:Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department

Date published: Jun 26, 1967

Citations

28 A.D.2d 717 (N.Y. App. Div. 1967)

Citing Cases

Thurlow v. Dunwell

When an assessment describes property sufficiently, an error or omission in identifying the owner does not…

Matter of Town of Brookhaven

Since each of the three parcels was separate and distinct, the description of the 10.24 acres plainly was not…