Opinion
2015–11068 Index No. 20435/13
04-25-2018
NYCTL 1998–2 TRUST, et al., respondents, v. 104–26 JAMAICA AVE, LLC, appellant, et al., defendants.
Harry C. Goberdhan, Jamaica, N.Y., for appellant. Zachary W. Carter, Corporation Counsel, New York, N.Y. (Vincent D'Orazio and Kevin R. Harkins of counsel), for respondents.
Harry C. Goberdhan, Jamaica, N.Y., for appellant.
Zachary W. Carter, Corporation Counsel, New York, N.Y. (Vincent D'Orazio and Kevin R. Harkins of counsel), for respondents.
JOHN M. LEVENTHAL, J.P., JEFFREY A. COHEN, JOSEPH J. MALTESE, BETSY BARROS, JJ.
DECISION & ORDERIn an action to foreclose tax liens on property owned by the defendant 104–26 Jamaica Ave, LLC, the defendant 104–26 Jamaica Ave, LLC, appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Frederick D.R. Sampson, J.), dated September 11, 2015. The order, insofar as appealed from, granted those branches of the plaintiffs' motion which were for summary judgment on the complaint insofar as asserted against the defendant 104–26 Jamaica Ave, LLC, and to strike its answer, and denied that defendant's cross motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint insofar as asserted against it.
ORDERED that the order is affirmed insofar as appealed from, with costs.
In this action to foreclose tax liens on property owned by the defendant 104–26 Jamaica Ave, LLC (hereinafter Jamaica Ave), the plaintiffs moved, inter alia, for summary judgment on the complaint insofar as asserted against Jamaica Ave and to strike its answer. Jamaica Ave cross-moved for summary judgment dismissing the complaint insofar as asserted against it. The Supreme Court granted those branches of the plaintiffs' motion and denied Jamaica Ave's cross motion. Jamaica Ave appeals.
The plaintiffs demonstrated their prima facie entitlement to judgment as a matter of law by submitting the subject tax lien certificate along with proof that no payments had been made on the tax lien (see NYCTL 2008–A Trust v. Trinco, Inc., 148 A.D.3d 1035, 1035–1036, 50 N.Y.S.3d 157 ; NYCTL 2008–A Trust v. Lee Zhen Xiang, 121 A.D.3d 1062, 1063, 995 N.Y.S.2d 197 ; NYCTL 2009–A Trust v. Tsafatinos, 101 A.D.3d 1092, 1093, 956 N.Y.S.2d 571 ; NYCTL 1996–1 Trust v. Orit Diagnostic Ctr., Inc., 19 A.D.3d 668, 668, 798 N.Y.S.2d 88 ; NYCTL 1996–1 Trust v. Westmoreland Assoc., 2 A.D.3d 811, 812, 769 N.Y.S.2d 390 ). In opposition, Jamaica Ave failed to raise a triable issue of fact rebutting the plaintiffs' showing or as to the merit of its affirmative defenses (see Alvarez v. Prospect Hosp., 68 N.Y.2d 320, 324, 508 N.Y.S.2d 923, 501 N.E.2d 572 ; Zuckerman v. City of New York, 49 N.Y.2d 557, 562, 427 N.Y.S.2d 595, 404 N.E.2d 718 ; NYCTL 2008–A Trust v. Trinco, Inc., 148 A.D.3d at 1036, 50 N.Y.S.3d 157 ; NYCTL 1998–2 Trustee v. 2388 Nostrand Corp., 69 A.D.3d 594, 595, 892 N.Y.S.2d 188 ).
Accordingly, the Supreme Court properly granted those branches of the plaintiffs' motion which were for summary judgment on the complaint insofar as asserted against Jamaica Ave and to strike its answer, and, for the same reasons, properly denied Jamaica Ave's cross motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint insofar as asserted against it.
LEVENTHAL, J.P., COHEN, MALTESE and BARROS, JJ., concur.