Opinion
2001-02756, 2001-04854
Argued May 28, 2002.
September 18, 2002.
In a proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78 in the nature of mandamus, inter alia, to compel the respondents John Giordano and the Village of Farmingdale to deliver a certain tax deed to the petitioner Thomas Gillen (Matter No. 1), and an action, inter alia, for a judgment directing the defendant John Giordano, as Treasurer of the Village of Farmingdale to issue a certain tax deed to the plaintiff Thomas Gillen (Matter No. 2), Thomas Gillen, the petitioner in Matter No. 1 and the plaintiff in Matter No. 2 appeals, (1) as limited by his brief, from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Nassau County, (Bucaria, J.), dated February 26, 2001, as denied those branches of the petition which were to compel the respondents John Giordano and the Village of Farmingdale to deliver the tax deed and for punitive damages, and (2) from a judgment of the same court, entered April 18, 2001, inter alia, which, upon a separate order of the same court, dated February 26, 2001, granting the cross motion of the defendant Pabco Realty Corp. for summary judgment dismissing the complaint insofar as asserted against it and to declare that its redemption of the subject property was valid, dismissed the complaint and declared that the redemption was valid.
Kenneth Cooperstein, Centerport, N.Y., for appellant in both Matters.
Mielo, Casolaro Stasko, L.L.P., Farmingdale, N.Y. (Charles J. Casolaro of counsel), for Village of Farmingdale respondents in both Matters.
Meyer, Suozzi, English Klein, P.C., Mineola, N.Y. (Michael A. Ciaffa of counsel), for Pabco Realty Corp., respondent in Matter No. 2.
Before: FRED T. SANTUCCI, J.P., LEO F. McGINITY, DANIEL F. LUCIANO, THOMAS A. ADAMS, JJ.
ORDERED that on the court's own motion, the notice of appeal from the order in Matter No. 1 dated February 26, 2001, is treated as an application for leave to appeal, and leave to appeal is granted (see CPLR 5701[c]); and it is further,
ORDERED that the order in Matter No. 1 dated February 26, 2001, and the judgment in Matter No. 2 are affirmed; and it is further,
ORDERED that one bill of costs is awarded to the respondents appearing separately and filling separate briefs.
Contrary to the appellant's contention, the redemption of the subject property by the defendant Pabco Realty Corp. was valid (see RPTL former 1456[1]). Moreover, the Supreme Court properly struck the appellant's request for punitive damages against the Village defendants (see Clark-Fitzpatrick, Inc. v. Long Is. R.R. Co., 70 N.Y.2d 382, 386; Sharapata v. Town of Islip, 56 N.Y.2d 332).
The appellant's remaining contentions are without merit.
SANTUCCI, J.P., McGINITY, LUCIANO and ADAMS, JJ., concur.