From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Rogers v. Pact Realty Corp.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Jul 2, 1969
32 A.D.2d 929 (N.Y. App. Div. 1969)

Opinion

July 2, 1969


Judgment of the Supreme Court, Suffolk County, dated January 23, 1969, modified, on the law, by inserting in the second ordering paragraph, following the word "answers", the words "to the amended complaint"; and by adding a paragraph severing the cross claims of defendant Pact Realty Corporation against the other defendants. As so modified, judgment affirmed, with one bill of $10 costs and disbursements to respondents, jointly against appellants filing separate briefs. In our opinion, the tax sale and the tax deed to defendant Pact Realty Corp., based on default in paying the second half of the 1963-64 taxes, were invalid because of the failure to have the word "Arrears" noted on the 1964-65 tax bill as required by section 71 of the Suffolk County Tax Act. (See Hutch v. Platt, 32 A.D.2d 925.) The instant case does not involve the validity of a tax or assessment and the provisions of section 63 of the Suffolk County Tax Act are therefore inapplicable. We find no grounds for disturbing the Special Term's determination, except as herein modified, in any of defendants' other contentions. The judgment is modified to permit a determination of the cross claims, a question which was not presented to or decided by the Special Term. Christ, Acting P.J., Brennan, Rabin, Munder and Martuscello, JJ., concur.


Summaries of

Rogers v. Pact Realty Corp.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Jul 2, 1969
32 A.D.2d 929 (N.Y. App. Div. 1969)
Case details for

Rogers v. Pact Realty Corp.

Case Details

Full title:WILLIAM ROGERS et al., Respondents, v. PACT REALTY CORP. et al., Appellants

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

Date published: Jul 2, 1969

Citations

32 A.D.2d 929 (N.Y. App. Div. 1969)
303 N.Y.S.2d 584

Citing Cases

Sussman v. Hendrickson

The 1980 bill states that "IF THE WORD `ARREARS' IS PRINTED HERE, SEE REVERSE SIDE" but the word "arrears" is…