From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Hamilton Mutual Realty Fund v. Band Realty Company

Court of Appeals of the State of New York
Mar 24, 1977
363 N.E.2d 353 (N.Y. 1977)

Opinion

Argued February 15, 1977

Decided March 24, 1977

Appeal from the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court in the Second Judicial Department, ANTHONY J. CERRATO, J.

Lawrence A. Blatte for appellant.

Harvey J. Fried and Herbert C. Litt for plaintiff-respondent.

Eugene J. Fox, Corporation Counsel (William N. Carroll of counsel), for defendant-respondent.


MEMORANDUM.

The order of the Appellate Division should be affirmed.

Appellant has failed to demonstrate that on the record before us there is any triable issue of fact which is legally material. Nor, assuming that the issue was raised below, is there any merit to appellant's contention that respondent is precluded from foreclosing the tax liens in question because no notice of redemption was given under section 1110 of the Real Property Tax Law. Section 1110 is not applicable since the City of Yonkers has not elected article 11 of the Real Property Tax Law (cf. § 1104, subd 1). We do not consider the several constitutional issues raised for the first time on the appeal to our court.

Chief Judge BREITEL and Judges JASEN, GABRIELLI, JONES, WACHTLER, FUCHSBERG and COOKE concur.

Order affirmed, with costs, in a memorandum. Question certified answered in the affirmative.


Summaries of

Hamilton Mutual Realty Fund v. Band Realty Company

Court of Appeals of the State of New York
Mar 24, 1977
363 N.E.2d 353 (N.Y. 1977)
Case details for

Hamilton Mutual Realty Fund v. Band Realty Company

Case Details

Full title:HAMILTON MUTUAL REALTY FUND, INC., Respondent, v. BAND REALTY COMPANY…

Court:Court of Appeals of the State of New York

Date published: Mar 24, 1977

Citations

363 N.E.2d 353 (N.Y. 1977)
363 N.E.2d 353
394 N.Y.S.2d 629

Citing Cases

Premier 3 Great Jones, LLC v. Hill

DISCUSSIONSummary judgment is appropriate when there are no triable issues of fact (e.g., Winegrad v N.Y.…

East River Savings Bank v. Cerullo Motors, Inc.

But unless the mortgagee is not reasonably identifiable, constructive notice alone does not satisfy the…