140 A.D.3d 742
N.Y. App. Div.2016Background
- Petitioner 149 Glen Street Corp. owned real property subject to a tax lien obtained by L & L Associates Holdings Corp. (L & L).
- L & L sought to redeem the property and sent a certified-mail notice of redemption to the property address as required by Nassau County Administrative Code § 5-51.0(c).
- The certified mailing was returned as "unclaimed." L & L did not send additional notice to the petitioner's Chief Executive Officer (CEO) address, even though L & L had that address from a Department of State website search.
- The Nassau County Treasurer approved issuance of a tax deed conveying the property to L & L despite the returned certified mail and without sending notice to the CEO address.
- Petitioner challenged the Treasurer’s determination in a CPLR article 78 proceeding; the Supreme Court annulled the Treasurer’s determination and set aside the tax deed.
- The Appellate Division affirmed, finding constitutionally inadequate notice prior to issuing the tax deed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether notice of redemption satisfied due process | L & L's certified mailing to the property was insufficient after it was returned unclaimed; additional notice to CEO address was required | Treasurer and L & L relied on statutory mailing to property address as sufficient; tax deed was proper | Notice was constitutionally insufficient; additional notice to CEO address was required and deed set aside |
| Whether Treasurer erred in issuing tax deed after returned mail | Petitioner argued Treasurer should not have issued deed without proof of adequate notice to known alternate address | Treasurer contended statutory procedure was followed and deed issuance proper | Treasurer’s determination affected by error of law for proceeding despite returned certified mail and available CEO address |
Key Cases Cited
- Mullane v. Central Hanover Bank & Trust Co., 339 U.S. 306 (U.S. 1950) (establishes requirement that notice be reasonably calculated to inform interested parties)
- Jones v. Flowers, 547 U.S. 220 (U.S. 2006) (when mailed notice is returned, additional steps reasonably calculated to notify must be taken if sender actually desires to inform recipient)
- Matter of Skolnick, 108 A.D.3d 720 (App. Div. 2013) (applied Jones in tax-deed/notice context)
- Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. v. Mastromarino, 98 A.D.3d 662 (App. Div. 2012) (Treasurer’s issuance of tax deed invalid where notice procedures were deficient)
- Temple Bnai Shalom of Great Neck v. Village of Great Neck Estates, 32 A.D.3d 391 (App. Div. 2006) (notice requirements for redemption prior to tax-deed issuance)
- 89 Pine Hollow Rd. Realty Corp. v. American Tax Fund, Foothill, 41 A.D.3d 771 (App. Div. 2007) (same)
- Mac Naughton v. Warren County, 20 N.Y.3d 252 (Ct. App. 2012) (discusses constitutional notice standards in state context)