[DOWNLOAD] "Matter Saman Holding Corp. v. Milton L. Burns" by Supreme Court of New York # eBook PDF Kindle ePub Free
eBook details
- Title: Matter Saman Holding Corp. v. Milton L. Burns
- Author : Supreme Court of New York
- Release Date : January 21, 1956
- Genre: Law,Books,Professional & Technical,
- Pages : * pages
- Size : 66 KB
Description
It appears that the assignor of the impleaded respondent made its purchase on November 19, 1947; that the property was continuously
occupied from that date to the present by the impleaded respondent or his tenant; that no notice to redeem was ever served
on appellant, its grantor or any occupant of the premises; that on November 7, 1952, without filing any proof of occupancy,
appellant's grantor paid to the County Treasurer the amount then appropriate for redemption, and that the County Treasurer
called upon the impleaded respondent to surrender the tax deed theretofore issued to him, but he declined to do so. In Suffolk
County, property sold for unpaid taxes may be redeemed by appropriate payment within three years from the date of such sale
(Suffolk County Tax Act, § 49 [L. 1920, ch. 311, as amd. by L. 1929, ch. 152]; Tax Law, §Â§ 152-a, 152-b; Johnson v. Smith,
178 Misc. 236); but if the property is occupied and notice to redeem is not served upon the owner or the occupant, as provided
by statute, the time is extended two years more (Mabie v. Fuller, 255 N. Y. 194; Johnson v. Smith, supra), during which period
redemption may be effected "by filing * * * satisfactory evidence of such occupancy" and by paying the appropriate amount
(Tax Law, § 137). The right to redemption exists only as permitted by statute and under such conditions as are expressed therein
(City of New Rochelle v. Echo Bay Waterfront Corp., 268 App. Div. 182, 191, affd. 294 N. Y. 678; Mabie v. Fuller, supra, p.
197; Matter of Blatnicky v. Ciancimino, 1 A.D.2d 383; People ex rel. Quaranto v. Moynahan, 148 App. Div. 744; Hennepin Improvement
Co. v. Schuster, 66 Misc. 634). Having failed to file proof of occupancy, as expressly required by the statute, appellant
was not entitled to the additional two years provided thereby. Accordingly, its time to redeem had expired prior to its attempt
to do so. Disposition Order unanimously affirmed, with $10 costs and disbursements.