| Muzio v Alfano-Hardy |
| 2010 NY Slip Op 04560 [73 AD3d 1144] |
| May 25, 2010 |
| Appellate Division, Second Department |
| John Muzio et al., Appellants, v Maria Alfano-Hardy etal., Respondents. |
—[*1] James A. Reilly, Carle Place, N.Y., for respondents Maria Alfano-Hardy, Joanne Banco, andVillage of Bayville. Levy & Levy, Great Neck, N.Y. (Joshua Levy of counsel), for respondent FlorenceRisman.
In an action, inter alia, for a judgment declaring that a deed executed by the defendantVillage of Bayville conveying to the defendant Florence Risman certain real property owned bythe plaintiffs is void, the plaintiffs appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Nassau County(Martin, J.), dated September 26, 2007, which granted the motion of the defendants MariaAlfano-Hardy, Joanne Banco, and the Village of Bayville, and the separate motion of thedefendant Florence Risman, for summary judgment dismissing the complaint insofar as assertedagainst each of them.
Ordered that the order is reversed, on the law, with one bill of costs payable by thedefendants appearing separately and filing separate briefs, and the defendants' respective motionsfor summary judgment dismissing the complaint insofar as asserted against them are denied.
In July 2001, the defendant Village of Bayville sold to the defendant Florence Risman a taxlien certificate relating to certain real property owned by the plaintiffs. In September 2003,Risman mailed a notice to redeem to the plaintiffs. The plaintiffs failed to redeem and theVillage conveyed the property to Risman. The plaintiffs seek, inter alia, to invalidate the deed.
The Village failed to make a prima facie showing that it satisfied the due process rights ofthe plaintiffs by furnishing constitutionally adequate notice of the sale of the underlying tax lien(see Mullane v Central Hanover Bank & Trust Co., 339 US 306, 314 [1950];Mennonite Bd. of Missions v Adams, 462 US 791 [1983]; Matter of McCann vScaduto, 71 NY2d 164 [1987]; Kahen-Kashi v Risman, 8 AD3d 342 [2004];Meadow Farm Realty Corp. v Pekich, 251 AD2d 634 [1998]). Hence, the Supreme Courterred in granting the defendants' respective motions for summary judgment dismissing thecomplaint insofar as asserted against each of them, regardless of the sufficiency of the plaintiffs'opposition papers.
In light of our determination, we need not address the parties' remaining contentions. Miller,J.P., Leventhal, Chambers and Lott, JJ., concur. [Prior Case History: 2007 NY Slip Op33173(U).]