Opinion
12732N- 12733N- 12734N- 12735N Index No. 40000/15 Case Nos. 2020-00962, 2020-00223, 2020-00224, 2020-01162
12-29-2020
IN REM TAX FORECLOSURE ACTION NO. 52, Borough of Bronx, Sections 9,10,11,12,14,15 and 16 Tax Classes 1 and 2.
Law Office of Gerald Pigott, Bethpage (Gerald M. Pigott of counsel), for appellants. James E. Johnson, Corporation Counsel, New York (Antonella Karlin of counsel), for municipal respondent.
Law Office of Gerald Pigott, Bethpage (Gerald M. Pigott of counsel), for appellants.
James E. Johnson, Corporation Counsel, New York (Antonella Karlin of counsel), for municipal respondent.
Webber, J.P., Mazzarelli, Gesmer, Moulton, Gonza´lez, JJ.
Orders, Supreme Court, Bronx County (Ben R. Barbato, J.), entered on or about May 24 and May 28, 2019, which denied appellants 2386 Morris Avenue, HDFC's, 419–21 East 157th Street, HDFC's, 3175–77 Villa Avenue, HDFC's, and 1113 Grant Avenue, HDFC's motions to vacate judgments of in rem foreclosures granted on default and the deeds transferring the properties, unanimously affirmed, without costs.
The judgments of foreclosure against the properties were duly entered in the office of the County Clerk, after publication of notices that complied with the applicable law (see Administrative Code of City of N.Y. § 11–406[c] ), as well as due process (see Matter of ISCA Enters. v. City of New York, 77 N.Y.2d 688, 569 N.Y.S.2d 927, 572 N.E.2d 610 [1991], cert denied 503 U.S. 906, 112 S.Ct. 1263, 117 L.Ed.2d 492 [1992] ; Matter of Upper E. Side Community Dev. Corp. v. City of N.Y. Div. of Real Prop., 176 A.D.2d 649, 575 N.Y.S.2d 302 [1st Dept. 1991] ). Accordingly, the presumption of regularity of these proceedings (Administrative Code § 11–411) became conclusive four months after entry of the judgments of foreclosure (id. § 11–412.1[h] ). As appellants did not make their motions to vacate the judgments or take any action to redeem the subject properties within the four-month period (id. § 11–412.1[d] ), the motions to vacate are time-barred (id. § 11–412.1[h]; see O'Bryan v. Stark, 77 A.D.3d 494, 909 N.Y.S.2d 427 [1st Dept. 2010], lv denied 17 N.Y.3d 704, 2011 WL 2473244 [2011] ; In Rem Tax Foreclosure Action No. 44, 23 A.D.3d 290, 808 N.Y.S.2d 12 [1st Dept. 2005] ). In addition, there is inadequate support in the record for appellants' claims that the City engaged in misconduct in connection with the foreclosures and property transfers to Neighborhood Restore Housing Development Fund Corporation under the City's third-party transfer program. Accordingly, we reject appellants' claim that the City should be equitably estopped from claiming that the redemption period expired (see Wilson v. Neighborhood Restore Hous., 129 A.D.3d 948, 12 N.Y.S.3d 166 [2d Dept. 2015] ; but see In Rem Tax Foreclosure Action No. 53 Borough of Brooklyn, 63 Misc.3d 1207(A), 2019 N.Y. Slip Op. 50434(U), 2019 WL 1431423 [Sup. Ct., Kings County 2019] ).
Were we to consider appellants' time-barred and unpreserved arguments, we would find them unavailing.