From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

City of New York v. Shahid

SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK Appellate Division, Second Judicial Department
Mar 10, 2021
192 A.D.3d 754 (N.Y. App. Div. 2021)

Opinion

2017–08379 Index No. 8700/15

03-10-2021

CITY OF NEW YORK, respondent, v. Abdus SHAHID, appellant.

Abdus Shahid, Brooklyn, NY, appellant pro se. James E. Johnson, Corporation Counsel, New York, N.Y. (MacKenzie Fillow and Fay Ng of counsel), for respondent.


Abdus Shahid, Brooklyn, NY, appellant pro se.

James E. Johnson, Corporation Counsel, New York, N.Y. (MacKenzie Fillow and Fay Ng of counsel), for respondent.

LEONARD B. AUSTIN, J.P., BETSY BARROS, FRANCESCA E. CONNOLLY, ANGELA G. IANNACCI, JJ.

DECISION & ORDER

In an action to foreclose a tax lien, the defendant appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Mark I. Partnow, J.), dated June 14, 2017. The order denied the defendant's motion, in effect, pursuant to CPLR 3211(a)(1) to dismiss the complaint insofar as asserted against him or, in the alternative, for summary judgment dismissing the complaint insofar as asserted against him.

ORDERED that the order is affirmed, with costs.

On July 14, 2015, the plaintiff commenced this action pursuant to Administrative Code of the City of New York § 11–404(a) to foreclose certain tax liens, including one on a delinquent parcel in Brooklyn owned by the defendant. The defendant interposed an answer, and then moved, in effect, pursuant to CPLR 3211(a)(1) to dismiss the complaint insofar as asserted against him or, in the alternative, for summary judgment dismissing the complaint insofar as asserted against him. The Supreme Court denied the motion, and the defendant appeals.

The Supreme Court properly denied, as untimely, that branch of the defendant's motion which was, in effect, pursuant to CPLR 3211(a)(1) to dismiss the complaint insofar as asserted against him, as it was made after the defendant served his answer (see CPLR 3211[e] ; Hendrickson v. Philbor Motors, Inc., 102 A.D.3d 251, 257, 955 N.Y.S.2d 384 ).

The Supreme Court also properly denied that branch of the defendant's motion which was, in effect, for summary judgment dismissing the complaint insofar as asserted against him, as he failed to establish, prima facie, any defense to the action (see Zuckerman v. City of New York, 49 N.Y.2d 557, 562, 427 N.Y.S.2d 595, 404 N.E.2d 718 ). Accordingly, the court properly denied that branch of the defendant's motion without regard to the sufficiency of the papers filed in opposition (see Winegrad v. New York Univ. Med. Ctr., 64 N.Y.2d 851, 853, 487 N.Y.S.2d 316, 476 N.E.2d 642 ).

AUSTIN, J.P., BARROS, CONNOLLY and IANNACCI, JJ., concur.


Summaries of

City of New York v. Shahid

SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK Appellate Division, Second Judicial Department
Mar 10, 2021
192 A.D.3d 754 (N.Y. App. Div. 2021)
Case details for

City of New York v. Shahid

Case Details

Full title:City of New York, respondent, v. Abdus Shahid, appellant.

Court:SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK Appellate Division, Second Judicial Department

Date published: Mar 10, 2021

Citations

192 A.D.3d 754 (N.Y. App. Div. 2021)
2021 N.Y. Slip Op. 1387
139 N.Y.S.3d 878

Citing Cases

Alli v. Steffens

Here, Defendants' motion was made more than three years after their answer was filed. Accordingly, the Court…