From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Hua Nan Commercial Bank, Ltd. v. Albicocco

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Mar 9, 2000
270 A.D.2d 265 (N.Y. App. Div. 2000)

Summary

In Hua Nan Commercial Bank, Ltd. v Albicocco, 270 AD2d 265, 704 NYS2d 605 (2nd Dept. 2000), the Second Department held that "it was proper to vacate the tax deed because appellant was required to serve appellee's attorney with a copy of the Notice to Redeem pursuant to Nassau County Administrative-Code § 5.51.0(a), as it was a legal representative of a party entitled to notice".

Summary of this case from KESE INDUSTRIES v. ROSLYN TORAH FOUNDATION

Opinion

Argued January 24, 2000

March 9, 2000

In a proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78, inter alia, in effect, to vacate the issuance of a tax deed by the appellant Santa Albicocco, the Treasurer of the County of Nassau, to Frank DiMaria, Frank DiMaria appeals from so much of (1) an order and judgment (one paper) of the Supreme Court, Nassau County (Burke, J.), dated September 25, 1998, as granted the petition to the extent of vacating the tax deed on the ground that the petitioner Wu Kao, PLLC, had not been served with the notice to redeem, and denied his cross motion to dismiss the proceeding, and (2) an order of the same court, dated February 17, 1999, as granted the petitioners' motion for reargument and, upon reargument, vacated all sales, assignments, and other transactions based on the original sale of the property on the ground that the original sale violated an automatic stay of all proceedings under 11 U.S.C. § 362, and were therefore void ab initio, and denied his motion for reargument of his cross motion to dismiss the proceeding, and Santa Albicocco separately appeals from so much of the order dated February 17, 1999, as vacated the sales, assignments, and other transactions.

Meyer, Suozzi, English Klein, P.C., Mineola, N.Y. (Michael A. Ciaffa of counsel), for appellant Frank DiMaria.

Shaw, Licitra, Bohner, Esernio Schwartz, P.C., Garden City, N Y (John H. Hall, Jr., of counsel), for appellant Santa Albicocco, etc.

Certilman Balin Adler Hyman, LLP, East Meadow, N.Y. (Harold Somer, Dale Allinson, and Ronald Scott Kaniuk of counsel), for respondents.

WILLIAM C. THOMPSON, J.P., SANDRA J. FEUERSTEIN, ROBERT W. SCHMIDT, NANCY E. SMITH, JJ.


DECISION ORDER

ORDERED that the appeal by Frank DiMaria from so much of the order as denied his motion for reargument is dismissed, without costs or disbursements, as no appeal lies from the denial of reargument; and it is further, ORDERED that the order is reversed insofar as reviewed, without costs or disbursements, and the petitioners' motion for reargument is denied; and it is further,

ORDERED that the order and judgment is affirmed insofar as appealed from, without costs or disbursements.

The Supreme Court correctly vacated the tax deed on the ground that Frank DiMaria was required to serve Wu Kao, PLLC, the attorney for Hua Nan Commercial Bank, Ltd., with a copy of the notice to redeem pursuant to Nassau County Administrative Code § 5-51.0(a) as it was a legal representative of a party entitled to notice.

The Supreme Court, however, erred in granting the petitioners' motion for reargument because they raised an entirely new ground in their motion, and proffered no valid reason why that ground was not raised in the first motion (see, Diorio v. City of New York, 202 A.D.2d 625 ).

THOMPSON, J.P., FEUERSTEIN, SCHMIDT, and SMITH, JJ., concur.


Summaries of

Hua Nan Commercial Bank, Ltd. v. Albicocco

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Mar 9, 2000
270 A.D.2d 265 (N.Y. App. Div. 2000)

In Hua Nan Commercial Bank, Ltd. v Albicocco, 270 AD2d 265, 704 NYS2d 605 (2nd Dept. 2000), the Second Department held that "it was proper to vacate the tax deed because appellant was required to serve appellee's attorney with a copy of the Notice to Redeem pursuant to Nassau County Administrative-Code § 5.51.0(a), as it was a legal representative of a party entitled to notice".

Summary of this case from KESE INDUSTRIES v. ROSLYN TORAH FOUNDATION

In Hua Nan, supra, Second Department decided the issue of whether, in order to comply with § 5.51.0 of the Nassau County Administrative Code, a tax lien purchaser was required to serve a lender's foreclosure attorney with the Notice to Redeem.

Summary of this case from KESE INDUSTRIES v. ROSLYN TORAH FOUNDATION

In Hua Nan, the individual failed to serve the notice to redeem on the bank's foreclosure attorneys of record, Wu Kao, PLLC.

Summary of this case from KESE INDUSTRIES v. ROSLYN TORAH FOUNDATION
Case details for

Hua Nan Commercial Bank, Ltd. v. Albicocco

Case Details

Full title:In the Matter of HUA NAN COMMERCIAL BANK, LTD., etc., et al., respondents…

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

Date published: Mar 9, 2000

Citations

270 A.D.2d 265 (N.Y. App. Div. 2000)
704 N.Y.S.2d 605

Citing Cases

Stryker v. Stelmak

However, a motion for reargument is not a vehicle for parties to "advance arguments different from those…

North Am. Van Lines, Inc. v. American Intl. Cos.

These arguments, however, are completely devoid of merit, as a motion for reargument is not a vehicle for…