| Matter of Orange County Commr. of Fin. (Helseth) |
| 2010 NY Slip Op 04385 [73 AD3d 1053] |
| May 18, 2010 |
| Appellate Division, Second Department |
| In the Matter of the Foreclosure of Tax Liens by Proceeding inRem Pursuant to Article Eleven of the Real Property Tax Law, by Orange County Commissionerof Finance, Appellant. Jeanette Helseth et al., Respondents. |
—[*1]
In a proceeding in rem pursuant to RPTL article 11 to foreclose tax liens, the petitionerappeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Orange County (Lubell, J.), dated February 23,2009, which, in effect, granted that branch of the respondents' motion which was to allow themto pay back taxes and interest due with respect to their property to the extent of vacating thenotice to redeem dated June 12, 2008, and directing the petitioner, inter alia, to re-serve thenotice to redeem by certified and ordinary mail.
Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.
The courts have consistently found that mailing certain notices by certified and ordinary mailsatisfies the due process requirements of the United States Constitution (see Jones vFlowers, 547 US 220 [2006]; Matter of Harner v County of Tioga, 5 NY3d 136, 140 [2005]).Here, a notice of foreclosure, sent by certified mail, was returned as "unclaimed." Furthermore,the appellant, the Orange County Commissioner of Finance, took additional steps to notify therespondents of the foreclosure proceeding as specified in RPTL article 11. These steps includedposting notices of the foreclosure proceeding on the property, at the County courthouse, and atthe Orange County Department of Finance, and publishing notice in at least three newspapers.Therefore, the requirements of due process were satisfied (see Matter of Harner v County ofTioga, 5 NY3d at 140-141). The appellant provided notice that was "reasonably calculated,under all the circumstances, to apprise interested parties of the pendency of the action and affordthem an opportunity to present their objections" (Mullane v Central Hanover Bank & TrustCo., 339 US 306, 314 [1950]).
However, the appellant failed to provide adequate notice of the respondents' opportunity toobtain a release of the appellant's interest in their property after the expiration of the statutoryredemption [*2]period pursuant to Local Law No. 7 (2001) ofCounty of Orange. A letter dated June 12, 2008, was sent solely by certified mail advising therespondents, for the first time, of an opportunity to obtain a release of the appellant's interest intheir property pursuant to Local Law No. 7 (2001) of County of Orange. It was returned as"undel[iverable] as addressed," which indicated that the address was invalid (see Matter ofHarner v County of Tioga, 5 NY3d at 141). Under these circumstances, the appellant wasobligated to take reasonable steps to ascertain a correct address for the respondents (id.at 140). While it is true that "[a] reasonable search of the public record . . . does notnecessarily require searching the Internet, voting records, motor vehicle records, the telephonebook or other similar resource" (Kennedy v Mossafa, 100 NY2d 1, 10 [2003]), theappellant did not show that there were no reasonable steps that could have been taken toascertain the respondents' correct address.
The appellant's remaining contentions are either not properly before this Court, or withoutmerit. Santucci, J.P., Angiolillo, Leventhal and Lott, JJ., concur. [Prior Case History: 24Misc 3d 204.]