LLC v. KATHERINE LANSER NEW YORK STATE DEPARTMENT OF TAX AND FINANCE JOHN AND JANE DOES 10 (2026)

Papers Submitted:

Notice of Motion (Seq. 05). x

Notice of Cross-Motion (Seq. 06) x

Order to Show Cause (Seq. 07) x

Affirmation in Opposition and in Reply x

Reply Affirmation x

Affirmation in Opposition x

Upon the foregoing papers, the motion by the Plaintiff COUNTY ACQUISITIONS LLC, for an Order amending the caption to substitute Jane Gwendlyn in the place and stead of Jane Doe 1; a Judgment declaring that Plaintiff is the record holder and owner of all rights, title and interest in the premises known as 165 North Forest Avenue, Rockville Centre, New York; an Order determining Defendant Katherine Lanser (hereinafter "Lanser") to be in breach of a Stipulation dated April 23, 2025 by failing to secure and pay for a homeowner's insurance policy; an Order directing Defendant Katherine Lanser to remove a trampoline located at the premises and vacate the premises immediately; and a money Judgment against Lanser in the amount of $3,886.38 as reimbursement of the policy premium paid for by Plaintiff (Seq No. 5); and the cross-motion by Lanser for an Order granting summary judgment in her favor; declaring the Treasurer's Deed issued to Plaintiff by the Village of Rockville Centre (hereinafter the "Village") null and void; and reverting title to the subject property to Lanser, or in the alternative, a judgment declaring that Plaintiff must pay just compensation to Lanser as determined by this Court (Seq. No. 6); and Lanser's Order to Show Cause for an Order staying related landlord/tenant eviction proceedings pending in Nassau County District Court under Case nos. LT-1526/22 and LT-1527/22, and enjoining Plaintiff from taking any action to interfere with Lanser's right to enjoyment and occupancy of the subject property (Seq. No. 7), are consolidated for disposition and decided as provided herein.

Plaintiff commenced this action seeking a judgment, pursuant to RPAPL Article 15, declaring it the record holder of the premises known as 165 North Forest Avenue, Rockville Centre, New York, and extinguishing all rights, title and interest of any other interested parties. In its Complaint, Plaintiff describes that it was the successful purchaser at a May 17, 2018 Tax Lien Sale, stemming from Lanser's failure to pay property taxes for the year 2017-2018 for the subject property. Plaintiff's Complaint notes that Plaintiff mailed Lanser a notice of redemption, but neither she nor any other interested party timely redeemed the subject property. Upon surrendering the related Tax Sale Certificate to the Village, the subject property was conveyed to Plaintiff by the Village via Treasurer's Deed recorded February 14, 2022 as per Village Code § 294-8.

By Order (Sullivan, J.) entered June 8, 2022, Plaintiff's motion for summary judgment was granted, and Plaintiff was declared the record holder and owner of the subject property, but the Court afforded to Lanser a 90-day period in which she could redeem the subject property. Upon reargument, Plaintiff's motion for summary judgment was denied in its entirety by Order (Sullivan, J.) entered February 10, 2023. Plaintiff appealed the June 8, 2022 and February 10, 2023 Orders.

Subsequent to the perfection of Plaintiff's appeal, the United States Supreme Court determined a matter pertaining to a statutory scheme similar to the Village's, whereby the State of Minnesota permitted itself to retain the surplus from a tax sale (see Tyler v Hennepin Cnty., 598 U.S. 631 [2023]). In Tyler, the Court noted that the Takings Clause of the United States Constitution prohibits private property from being taken for public use without just compensation (see U.S. Const., Amdt. 5). The Court acknowledged long-standing precedent and history in concluding that, while the government may seize and sell property to recover for unpaid taxes, the use of tax debt to confiscate more property than was due constitutes a " 'classic taking in which the government directly appropriates private property for its own use' " (Tyler, 598 U.S. 631, quoting Tahoe-Sierra Preservation Council, Inc. v Tahoe Regional Planning Agency, 535 U.S. 302 [2002]). Accordingly, the Court held that the State of Minnesota's statutory scheme violated the Takings Clause by allowing the withholding of surplus from tax sales without providing the taxpayer with an opportunity to recover the excess value (see Tyler, 598 U.S. 631).

On appeal, Lanser argued that the Village's conveyance of her property to Plaintiff constituted an unlawful taking pursuant to Tyler. By Order dated February 19, 2025, the Appellate Division, Second Department, found that Lanser's contentions amount to a constitutional challenge to Village Code § 294-8, and that it was in the interest of justice to consider such contentions (see Cnty. Acquisitions, LLC v Lanser, 235 AD3d 831 [2d Dept 2025]). Accordingly, the matter was remitted to this Court for consideration of Lanser's takings argument upon notice to the Village and the New York State Attorney General. (see Lanser, 235 AD3d 831, citing Tyler, 598 U.S. 631). Following such notice, the New York State Attorney General's Office submitted a letter advising that it would not be intervening on the issues herein, while the Village has failed to appear or respond.

" 'Title 3 of article 14 of the Real Property Tax Law . . . previously allowed villages to conduct tax lien sales and convey parcels of real property by tax deed' " (Cnty. Acquisitions, LLC v Cruz, 241 AD3d 1422 [2d Dept 2025], quoting Joel Friedberg Trustee v Metaglo, Inc., 120 AD3d 629 [2d Dept 2014]). Under this statutory scheme, villages were permitted to conduct public auctions for the purpose of selling tax liens so long as they published requisite notice in a local newspaper (see Cruz, 241 AD3d 1422, citing former RPTL 1452). The purchasers of such tax liens would receive a tax lien certificate describing the property purchased and the sum paid (see Cruz, 241 AD3d 1422, citing former RPTL 1464). Purchasers would then redeem the property by paying the village treasurer the sum stated in the tax lien certificate with interest from the date of sale (see Cruz, 241 AD3d 1422, citing former RPTL 1456[1]). If a property was not redeemed within two years of a sale, the purchaser of the tax lien certificate could commence an action to foreclose, or, alternatively, could submit an application to the village treasurer for a deed conveying the property to such purchaser so long as they mailed a notice of redemption to the property owner at least six months prior, offering a final opportunity to redeem the property (see Cruz, 241 AD3d 1422, citing former RPTL 1464[1]). The village treasurer was required to issue a deed to any purchaser who surrendered their tax lien certificate and submitted an application with proof of service of the notice of redemption (see Cruz, 241 AD3d 1422, citing former RPTL 1464[3]). Such treasurer's deeds vested in the purchaser an absolute estate in fee, subject to village, county or state claims, and entitled the purchaser to have and possess the real property conveyed (see Cruz, 241 AD3d 1422, citing former RPTL 1464).

Despite being repealed, Chapter 602 of the Laws of 1993, as amended, " 'authorized a village to adopt a local law allowing it to continue to enforce tax liens pursuant to the otherwise repealed sections of RPTL article 14, title 3' " (Cruz, 241 AD3d 1422, quoting Joel Friedberg Trustee, 120 AD3d 629). The Village of Rockville Centre is among the villages that adopted such local laws, enacting Village Code § 294-8 for the purpose of continuing to enforce tax liens pursuant to the otherwise repealed sections of RPTL article 14, title 3.

In support of her constitutional challenge to the statutory scheme of Village Code § 294-8, Lanser asserts that the taking of her surplus equity without just compensation was unlawful. Lanser notes that Tyler has been determined to apply retroactively to matters including the instant action (see Fair v Continental Resources, 143 S. Ct. 2580 [2023]; see also Nieveen v TAX 106, 143 S. Ct. 2580 [2023]).

In opposition, Plaintiff asserts that the taking of Lanser's property was proper, citing the government's authority to seize and sell property to recover unpaid tax debt. Plaintiff argues that this Court lacks jurisdiction to grant Lanser relief pursuant to the Takings Clause, as Lanser had never asserted any claim for such relief.

As a preliminary matter, contrary to Plaintiff's contentions, this Court finds that it is appropriate to consider Lanser's takings argument, particularly in light of the Appellate Division, Second Department's remittal of this matter with the specific directive to do so (see Lanser, 235 AD3d 831; see also Cruz, 241 AD3d 1422).

Here, it is clear that the Village took far more from Lanser than what was owed in past due taxes when it seized her property, conducted a sale, and conveyed title to Plaintiff free of any encumbrances. In addition, it is undisputed that the Village offered no mechanism or procedure whereby Lanser could recover the surplus equity which remained after the satisfaction of her unpaid taxes and any related interest and fees. Lanser was therefore deprived of the constitutional protections from uncompensated appropriation of her property by the State (see Tyler, 598 U.S. 631, citing Lawton, 110 U.S. 146; see also Jones v Flowers, 547 U.S. 220 [2006]). As noted by the Appellate Division, Second Department, the Village's statutory scheme results in a windfall to purchasers of tax debt, such as Plaintiff, at the expense of property owners such as Lanser (see Lanser, 235 AD3d 831). Upon the foregoing, this Court can only conclude that the Village's actions, which culminated in the February 2022 Treasurer's Deed issued by the Village to Plaintiff, constituted an unlawful taking of Lanser's property (see Tyler, 598 U.S. 631).

In remitting the matter, the Appellate Division, Second Department noted that it was not clear whether the appropriate relief would be to invalidate the Treasurer's Deed conveying title to Plaintiff, or to permit Lanser to pursue a potential claim for just compensation against the Village (see Lanser, 235 AD3d 831). As the Takings Clause prohibits the Village from confiscating or retaining more property than was due, it follows that there can be no circumstance under which the Village could be permitted to convey property obtained via an unconstitutional taking (see Tyler, 598 U.S. 631, citing Tahoe-Sierra Preservation Council, Inc., 535 U.S. 302). Therefore, the Treasurer's Deed recorded February 14, 2022, which forms the basis of Plaintiff's claims in this quiet title action, is null and void (see Tyler v Hennepin Cnty., 598 U.S. 631 [2023], citing U.S. Const., Amdt. 5).

Accordingly, it is hereby

ORDERED that, upon consideration of Lanser's takings argument as directed by the Appellate Division, Second Department, Village Code § 294-8 is deemed unconstitutional; and it is further

ORDERED that Plaintiff's motion (Seq. No. 5) is DENIED in its entirety; and it is further

ORDERED that Lanser's cross-motion (Seq. No. 6) is GRANTED to the extent that the Treasurer's Deed issued by the Village to Plaintiff is null and void, and title to the subject property therefore reverts to Lanser; and it is further

ORDERED that, upon the foregoing, Plaintiff's Complaint is DISMISSED; and it is further

ORDERED that Lanser's Order to Show Cause (Seq. No. 7) is DENIED as academic; and it is further

ORDERED that Counsel for Lanser is directed to serve a copy of this Order with Notice of Entry upon the Village of Rockville Centre and the New York State Attorney General's Office within 14 days of entry of this decision; and it is further

ORDERED, that all requests for relief not addressed herein are DENIED

This shall constitute the Decision and Order of the Court.

DATED: June 23, 2026

Mineola, New York

Hon. Randy Sue Marber, J.S.C.

Randy Sue Marber, J.