| Matter of Kese Indus. v Roslyn Torah Found. |
| 2009 NY Slip Op 04064 [62 AD3d 880] |
| May 19, 2009 |
| Appellate Division, Second Department |
| In the Matter of Kese Industries et al.,Respondents, v Roslyn Torah Foundation et al., Appellants, et al.,Respondents. |
—[*1] Kenneth Cooperstein, Centerport, N.Y., for appellant Thomas Gillen. Shaw, Licitra, Gulotta, Esernio & Henry, P.C., Garden City, N.Y. (John Henry Hall ofcounsel), for petitioners-respondents.
In a hybrid action, inter alia, for a judgment declaring that a tax deed dated April 23, 2007,issued by Steven D. Conkling, the Treasurer of the County of Nassau, to Thomas Gillen andMaureen Gillen, as trustees of the Gillen Living Trust, doing business as Jumbo Investments, isvoid, and proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78, among other things, to review a determinationof Steven D. Conkling to issue the tax deed, Roslyn Torah Foundation and the Siat Foundationappeal, and Thomas Gillen, as trustee of the Gillen Living Trust, doing business as JumboInvestments, separately appeals, as limited by their briefs, from stated portions of an order andjudgment (one paper) of the Supreme Court, Nassau County (LaMarca, J.), entered January 18,2008, which, upon a decision of the same court dated December 17, 2007, among other things,declared that the tax deed is void, and permitted the petitioners to redeem the subject tax liens.
Ordered that the order and judgment is affirmed insofar as appealed from, with one bill ofcosts payable by the appellants appearing separately and filing separate briefs.
The Supreme Court properly declared that the tax deed dated April 23, 2007 is void. ThomasGillen, as trustee of the Gillen Living Trust, doing business as Jumbo Investments, failed toserve the law firm Meyer, [*2]Suozzi, English & Klein, P.C., theattorneys for the mortgagee Kese Industries, with a copy of the notice to redeem. Service of thenotice to redeem was required by Nassau County Administrative Code § 5-51.0 (a) (L1939, chs 272, 701-709, as amended), as the law firm was a legal representative of a partyentitled to notice (see Matter of Hua Nan Commercial Bank v Albicocco, 270 AD2d 265[2000]).
The appellants' remaining contentions are without merit. Skelos, J.P., Fisher, Leventhal andLott, JJ., concur.
Motion by the petitioners-respondents to dismiss appeals from an order and judgment (onepaper) entered January 18, 2008, on the ground that they have been rendered academic. Bydecision and order on motion of this Court dated February 13, 2009, the motion was held inabeyance and referred to the Justices hearing the appeal for determination upon the argument orsubmission thereof.
Upon the papers filed in support of the motion, the papers filed in opposition thereto, andupon the argument of the appeal, it is
Ordered that the motion is denied. Skelos, J.P., Fisher, Leventhal and Lott, JJ., concur.