From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Sixteen Eighty West 7th Corp. v. Board of Estimate

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Mar 11, 1985
109 A.D.2d 799 (N.Y. App. Div. 1985)

Opinion

March 11, 1985

Appeal from the Supreme Court, Kings County (Hirsch, J.).


Judgment affirmed, with costs.

Inasmuch as petitioner was continuously delinquent in paying taxes on the subject property while he owned the same, failed to take advantage of the four-month "mandatory" redemption period (Administrative Code of City of New York § D17-25.0 [f]) and waited until the discretionary 20-month period had nearly expired (Administrative Code § D17-25.0 [g]) before applying for a release of the city's interest in said property, we agree with Special Term that respondent's determination was not arbitrary, capricious or irrational ( Solomon v. City of New York Dept. of Gen. Servs., 94 A.D.2d 283; Benigno v. City of New York, 123 Misc.2d 375). Such decisions, absent evidence of illegality, rest within the sound judgment of the Board ( Matter of Dwyer v Lindsay, 23 N.Y.2d 562; Benigno v. City of New York, supra). O'Connor, J.P., Rubin, Lawrence and Eiber, JJ., concur.


Summaries of

Sixteen Eighty West 7th Corp. v. Board of Estimate

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Mar 11, 1985
109 A.D.2d 799 (N.Y. App. Div. 1985)
Case details for

Sixteen Eighty West 7th Corp. v. Board of Estimate

Case Details

Full title:In the Matter of SIXTEEN EIGHTY WEST 7TH CORP., Appellant, v. BOARD OF…

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

Date published: Mar 11, 1985

Citations

109 A.D.2d 799 (N.Y. App. Div. 1985)

Citing Cases

Witter v. New York City Board of Estimate

Petitioner owns several properties which have been the subject of in rem foreclosure proceedings, one of…

Weigner v. City of New York

The Board of Estimate has virtually unlimited discretion under Administrative Code § 11-424(g) (formerly…