Opinion
2017–00685 Index No. 10047/12
09-18-2019
NYCTL 2011–A TRUST, et al., Appellants, v. Livingston EVELYN, et al., Respondents, et al., Defendants.
Bronster, LLP, New York, N.Y. (Leonid Krechmer of counsel), for appellants.
Bronster, LLP, New York, N.Y. (Leonid Krechmer of counsel), for appellants.
MARK C. DILLON, J.P., CHERYL E. CHAMBERS, COLLEEN D. DUFFY, BETSY BARROS, JJ.
DECISION & ORDER In an action to foreclose a tax lien, the plaintiffs appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Loren Baily–Schiffman, J.), dated May 14, 2015. The order, insofar as appealed from, denied those branches of the plaintiffs' motion which were for summary judgment on the complaint insofar as asserted against the defendants Livingston Evelyn, Annette Evelyn, and Dave Evelyn, to strike those defendants' answer, and to appoint a referee to compute the amount due to the plaintiffs on the subject tax lien.
ORDERED that the order is reversed insofar as appealed from, on the law, with costs, and those branches of the plaintiffs' motion which were for summary judgment on the complaint insofar as asserted against the defendants Livingston Evelyn, Annette Evelyn, and Dave Evelyn, to strike those defendants' answer, and to appoint a referee to compute the amount due to the plaintiffs on the subject tax lien are granted.
In this action to foreclose a tax lien, the plaintiffs demonstrated their prima facie entitlement to judgment as a matter of law by submitting the subject tax lien certificate, which was presumptive evidence of a valid and enforceable lien (see Administrative Code of City of N.Y. § 11–336; NYCTL 2009–A Trust v. Morris, 164 A.D.3d 1249, 1250, 82 N.Y.S.3d 530 ), 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, 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 ). The plaintiffs also demonstrated their entitlement to relief on that branch of their motion which was to appoint a referee to compute the amount due to them on the tax lien (see NYCTL 2008–A Trust v. Trinco, Inc., 148 A.D.3d at 1036, 50 N.Y.S.3d 157 ). Contrary to the Supreme Court's determination, the defendants Livingston Evelyn, Annette Evelyn, and Dave Evelyn (hereinafter the Evelyn defendants) failed to raise a triable issue of fact in opposition to the plaintiffs' showing or as to the merit of their affirmative defenses alleging that the subject tax lien is defective (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 1998–2 Trust v. 104–26 Jamaica Ave, LLC, 160 A.D.3d 974, 975, 72 N.Y.S.3d 474 ; NYCTL 2008–A Trust v. Trinco, Inc., 148 A.D.3d 1035, 50 N.Y.S.3d 157 ; Joon Mgt. One Corp. v. Town of Ramapo, 142 A.D.3d 587, 588–589, 36 N.Y.S.3d 673 ). Neither a proceeding pursuant to RPTL article 7 nor CPLR article 78, if applicable, to challenge the validity of the subject tax lien was ever commenced by the Evelyn defendants, and any such proceeding would be untimely (cf. Matter of Better World Real Estate Group v. New York City Dept. of Fin., 122 A.D.3d 27, 992 N.Y.S.2d 247 ).
Accordingly, the Supreme Court should have granted those branches of the plaintiffs' motion which were for summary judgment on the complaint insofar as asserted against the Evelyn defendants, to strike the Evelyn defendants' answer, and to appoint a referee to compute the amount due to the plaintiffs on the tax lien.
DILLON, J.P., CHAMBERS, DUFFY and BARROS, JJ., concur.