From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Matter of 380 Fr. St. No. 20 C. v. Dutchess

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Sep 13, 1999
264 A.D.2d 739 (N.Y. App. Div. 1999)

Opinion

Submitted May 28, 1999

September 13, 1999

In a proceeding, inter alia, to avoid a transfer of real property pursuant to a judicial foreclosure proceeding, the petitioners appeal from (1) an order of the Supreme Court, Dutchess County (Hillery, J.), dated April 8, 1998, which, inter alia, upon reargument, granted that branch of respondents' motion which was pursuant to CPLR 3211(a)(1) to dismiss the petition insofar as it was asserted by the petitioner 380 Front Street No. 20 Corp., (2) a decision of the same court dated July 2, 1998, and (3) a judgment of the same court dated July 22, 1998, which dismissed the petition.

Smith, Buss Jacobs, LLP, Yonkers, N.Y. (Jeffrey D. Buss of counsel), for appellants.

Ian G. Mac Donald, County Attorney, Poughkeepsie, N.Y. (Gail W. Epstein of counsel), for respondents.

FRED T. SANTUCCI. J.P., GABRIEL M. KRAUSMAN, ANITA R. FLORIO and SANDRA J. FEUERSTEIN, JJ.


DECISION ORDER

ORDERED that the appeal from the decision is dismissed, as no appeal lies from a decision ( see, Schicchi v. Green Constr. Corp., 100 A.D.2d 509); and it is further,

ORDERED that the appeal from the order is dismissed; and it is further,

ORDERED that the judgment is affirmed: and it is further,

ORDERED that the respondents are awarded one bill of costs.

The appeal from the intermediate order must be dismissed, because the right of direct appeal therefrom terminated with the entry of judgment in this proceeding ( see, Matter of Aho, 39 N.Y.2d 241, 248). The issues raised on the appeal from the order are considered on the appeal from the judgment ( see, CPLR 5501 [a][1]).

It is undisputed that the notice of foreclosure of tax liens was sent to the petitioner 380 Front Street No. 20 Corp. (hereinafter 380 Front Street) at 34 West Columbia Street, Hempstead, New York, 11550, its last known address on the record in the office of the enforcing officer. The addition of an ampersand to the name of 380 Front Street in the address on the envelope was a de mininmis error which did not affect the validity of the mailing ( see, American Mtge. Bank v. Matovitz, 208 A.D.2d 788). Moreover, 380 Front Street fails to contend that it did not receive any tax notices, except the notice at issue here, or that it changed its address on the tax rolls. Under these circumstances, the mailing, which was to the last known address of 380 Front Street, was sufficient ( see, Real Property Tax Law § 1124; Matter of ISCA Enters. v. City of New York, 77 N.Y.2d 688; Matter of T.E.A. Mar. Automotive Corp. v. Scaduto, 199 A.D.2d 511; cf., Tobia v. Town of Rockland, 106 A.D.2d 827; Wiesnienski v. Basinait, 59 A.D.2d 1028; see also, Cornwall Warehousing v. Town of New Windsor, 238 A.D.2d 370).

The petitioners' remaining contentions are without merit.

SANTUCCI, J.P., KRAUSMAN, FLORIO, and FEUERSTEIN, JJ., concur.


Summaries of

Matter of 380 Fr. St. No. 20 C. v. Dutchess

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Sep 13, 1999
264 A.D.2d 739 (N.Y. App. Div. 1999)
Case details for

Matter of 380 Fr. St. No. 20 C. v. Dutchess

Case Details

Full title:In the MATTER OF 380 FRONT STREET NO. 20 CORP., et al., appellants. v…

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

Date published: Sep 13, 1999

Citations

264 A.D.2d 739 (N.Y. App. Div. 1999)
694 N.Y.S.2d 748

Citing Cases

NYCTL-1 Trust v. Liberty Bay Realty Corp.

to Liberty Bay's contention, the plaintiffs were not required to serve an additional copy of the summons and…

Hicks v. City of Poughkeepsie

ORDERED that the order is affirmed, with costs. Contrary to the plaintiff's contention, the notice provided…