Learn About the Law
Get help with your legal needs
FindLaw’s Learn About the Law features thousands of informational articles to help you understand your options. And if you’re ready to hire an attorney, find one in your area who can help.
IN RE: the FORECLOSURE OF TAX LIENS BY COUNTY OF CLINTON. County of Clinton, Respondent; Alexander Tupaz et al., Appellants.
Appeal from an order of the County Court of Clinton County (Ryan, J.), entered July 23, 2004, which, in a proceeding pursuant to RPTL article 11, denied respondents' motion to vacate and reopen a default judgment entered against them.
Petitioner obtained a default judgment of tax foreclosure upon two parcels of real property owned by respondents, which was entered on February 20, 2004. On May 20, 2004, respondents moved to vacate and reopen the default judgment. The motion challenged the judgment on various legal grounds, all deriving from respondents' contention that they never received personal notice of the foreclosure proceeding as required by RPTL 1125. County Court denied respondents' motion, and they appeal.
We affirm. A motion to reopen a default judgment of tax foreclosure “may not be brought later than one month after entry of the judgment” (RPTL 1131; see Matter of Foreclosure of Tax Liens by Clinton County [Fortunatus], 299 A.D.2d 774, 751 N.Y.S.2d 81 [2002], lvs. dismissed 99 N.Y.2d 610, 757 N.Y.S.2d 820, 787 N.E.2d 1166 [2003], 100 N.Y.2d 574, 764 N.Y.S.2d 382, 796 N.E.2d 473 [2003]; Matter of Foreclosure of Tax Liens by Clinton County [Zachary], 299 A.D.2d 709, 750 N.Y.S.2d 350 [2002], lvs. dismissed 99 N.Y.2d 610, 757 N.Y.S.2d 820, 787 N.E.2d 1166 [2003], 100 N.Y.2d 574, 764 N.Y.S.2d 382, 796 N.E.2d 473 [2003] ). Respondents do not now dispute the applicability of this statute of limitations and, clearly, their motion was made more than one month after the entry of the judgment. Accordingly, County Court properly denied the motion as time barred. In any event, we discern no merit in respondents' arguments flowing from the fact that the signature mark appearing on the postal return receipt was illegible.
ORDERED that the order is affirmed, without costs.
MERCURE, J.P.
CREW III, MUGGLIN, LAHTINEN and KANE, JJ., concur.
Thank you for your feedback!
A free source of state and federal court opinions, state laws, and the United States Code. For more information about the legal concepts addressed by these cases and statutes visit FindLaw's Learn About the Law.
Decided: April 21, 2005
Court: Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Third Department, New York.
Search our directory by legal issue
Enter information in one or both fields (Required)
Harness the power of our directory with your own profile. Select the button below to sign up.
Learn more about FindLaw’s newsletters, including our terms of use and privacy policy.
Get help with your legal needs
FindLaw’s Learn About the Law features thousands of informational articles to help you understand your options. And if you’re ready to hire an attorney, find one in your area who can help.
Search our directory by legal issue
Enter information in one or both fields (Required)