From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Matter of Tax Foreclosure Action No. 39

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, First Department
Mar 24, 1994
202 A.D.2d 328 (N.Y. App. Div. 1994)

Opinion

March 24, 1994

Appeal from the Supreme Court, Bronx County (Bertram Katz, J.).


Assuming, arguendo, that the notice received by appellant allowed it until April 10, 1992 to file arrears and constituted an enlargement of the "last date for redemption" governing its time to answer under Administrative Code of the City of New York § 11-409, there was no further enlargement of the "last date for redemption" so as to encompass appellant's unilateral agreement to "pay the taxes due by or before July 3, 1992". A taxpayer who challenges an assessment must nonetheless pay his taxes (Matter of County of Fulton v. State of New York, 76 N.Y.2d 675, 678-679), and it would be improper to conclude that the Corporation Counsel had agreed to appellant's contrary terms, absent clear and specific language to that effect (see, Slamow v. Del Col, 174 A.D.2d 725, 726, affd 79 N.Y.2d 1016).

We do not agree with the respondent that the appeal from the earlier order should be dismissed as untimely, nor do we find the second order an unappealable denial of reargument only (compare, Bowen v. Sherwood Sec. Corp., 189 A.D.2d 592, with Williams v Bryant, 196 A.D.2d 815).

We have considered the appellant's remaining arguments, and find them to be without merit.

Concur — Murphy, P.J., Sullivan, Rosenberger, Asch and Tom, JJ.


Summaries of

Matter of Tax Foreclosure Action No. 39

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, First Department
Mar 24, 1994
202 A.D.2d 328 (N.Y. App. Div. 1994)
Case details for

Matter of Tax Foreclosure Action No. 39

Case Details

Full title:In the Matter of TAX FORECLOSURE ACTION NO. 39 OF BOROUGH OF THE BRONX…

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

Date published: Mar 24, 1994

Citations

202 A.D.2d 328 (N.Y. App. Div. 1994)
609 N.Y.S.2d 591

Citing Cases

In re Appln. of Westmoreland Coal v. Entech

The purchase price adjustment clause of the parties' stock purchase agreement unambiguously requires that any…

Dimovich v. Talev

Even considering those papers, however, we conclude that the court properly granted the cross motions for…