Opinion
October 17, 1955.
In an action in rem for the foreclosure of tax liens pursuant to title D of chapter 17 of the Administrative Code of the City of New York, the City of New York appeals from an order dated November 3, 1952, directing the city collector to accept payment of the tax arrears and interest and upon such payment being made to discontinue the proceeding insofar as it affects respondent's property, and from an order dated January 5, 1953, granting a motion for reargument and upon such reargument adhering to the original decision. Order on reargument affirmed, with $10 costs and disbursements. Appeal from order dated November 3, 1952, dismissed, without costs. The statute (Administrative Code of City of New York, § D17-6.0) requires service of the notice of foreclosure by mailing to the last known address of each owner of property affected thereby as the same appears upon the records of the city treasurer. The notice by which appellant attempted to acquire jurisdiction over respondent's property was directed to 193 East 94th Street, Brooklyn, New York, an address which appeared in the city treasurer's cash book. The notice was not received. It was returned by the post office with the notation, "no such number". The correct address was 163 East 94th Street, and there was no such number as 193 on East 94th Street. The entry in the treasurer's cash book was made, apparently by mistake, in March of 1951. As is disclosed by an affidavit submitted by appellant in opposition to the motion which resulted in the original order appealed from, the treasurer was subsequently informed by the Federal postal authorities, before the mailing of the notice of foreclosure, that there was no such number as 193 East 94th Street. Such being the case, we do not consider the mailing of the notice of forecloseure to an address which as the treasurer had been informed did not in fact exist, a compliance with the statutory direction to mail to the "last known address" of the property owner. It does not appear that a copy of the notice was posted, as is required by the statute, in the event that the address of an owner does not appear upon the records of the treasurer. The statutory provision for notice is designed to protect property owners, and is subject to strict construction. ( City of White Plains v. Hadermann, 272 App. Div. 507, affd. 297 N.Y. 623; City of New Rochelle v. Stevens, 271 App. Div. 977, affd. 297 N.Y. 533.) Compliance therewith is a prerequisite to jurisdiction. Since there was, in this case, a failure to comply with the statute, respondent's time to redeem, as provided by the notice of foreclosure, has not started to run. Cases which announce the rule that the courts have no power to extend the time of a property owner to redeem, such as City of New York v. Nelson ( 309 N.Y. 94), City of New York v. Lynch ( 281 App. Div. 103 8, affd. 306 N.Y. 809), Town of Somers v. Covey ( 283 App. Div. 883, affd. 308 N.Y. 798) and City of Peekskill v. Perry ( 272 App. Div. 940) are readily distinguishable. Nolan, P.J., MacCrate, Beldock, Murphy and Ughetta, JJ., concur.