| Matter of American Tax Funding, LLC v Saita |
| 2013 NY Slip Op 04087 [107 AD3d 1134] |
| June 6, 2013 |
| Appellate Division, Third Department |
| In the Matter of American Tax Funding, LLC, Wells FargoFoothill as Secured Party, Respondent, v Barbara A. Saita et al., Appellants, et al.,Defendant. |
—[*1] Stagg, Terenzi, Confusione & Wabnik, LLP, Garden City (Jacqueline M. DellaChiesa of counsel), for respondent.
Stein, J. Appeal from an order of the Supreme Court (Sise, J.), entered February 15,2012 in Montgomery County, which, among other things, granted plaintiff's motion forsummary judgment.
In September 2006, in accord with the Laws of 2006 (ch 505), the City ofAmsterdam conveyed to plaintiff its interest in various tax liens, including a 2003 taxlien (hereinafter the subject tax lien) on property owned and/or occupied by defendantsBarbara A. Saita, Frederick N. Saita II and Imperial Flowers (hereinafter collectivelyreferred to as defendants). In January 2011, plaintiff notified the City that it intended toforeclose the subject tax lien, among others, and, following the dismissal of BarbaraSaita's chapter 13 bankruptcy petition, commenced this foreclosure action. After joinderof issue, plaintiff moved for summary judgment pursuant to CPLR 3212. Supreme Courtissued an order that, among other things, granted plaintiff's motion for summaryjudgment and appointed a referee to compute the amount owed to plaintiff on the subjecttax lien. Defendants now appeal and we affirm.
In order to provide the City with a more efficient and effective method of managingits [*2]delinquent property taxes, a 2006 legislativeenactment authorized the City to enter into contracts with private parties until December31, 2006 to sell all or a portion of its delinquent tax liens, subject to certain conditions(see L 2006, ch 505, § 1). The legislation further permitted the tax lienpurchaser to foreclose such liens in the manner prescribed by RPTL 1194, upon theexpiration of the statutory redemption period (see L 2006, ch 505, § 1 [f];RPTL 1110 [1]). The legislation explicitly provided that it expired and was "deemedrepealed" as of December 31, 2008 (see L 2006, ch 505, § 2). However,the Legislature reenacted the provision in August 2008, allowing the City to contract tosell its tax liens through December 31, 2008, and extended the expiration and repeal dateto December 31, 2010 (see L 2008, ch 455).
Defendants argue that the sunset provision contained in the legislation extinguishedplaintiff's right to foreclose on the subject tax lien (see L 2008, ch 455, §2) and, therefore, this action was untimely. We disagree. In this regard, "[i]t isfundamental that a court, in interpreting a statute, should attempt to effectuate the intentof the Legislature. The starting point is always to look to the language itself and wherethe language of a statute is clear and unambiguous, courts must give effect to its plainmeaning" (Pultz vEconomakis, 10 NY3d 542, 547 [2008] [internal quotation marks and citationsomitted]). Here, the language of the statute unambiguously creates a right on the part ofthe City to enter into contracts to sell its tax liens to private parties during a limited timeperiod. Nothing in the plain meaning of that language affects the rights of lien purchasersto commence foreclosure proceedings on their acquired liens or limits the time periodsduring which they are entitled to do so.
Indeed, in our view, defendants' strained interpretation would lead to an"unreasonable [and] absurd consequence[ ]" (Matter of County of Albany v Hudson Riv.-Black Riv. RegulatingDist., 97 AD3d 61, 69 [2012], lv denied 19 NY3d 816 [2012] [internalquotation marks and citations omitted]), because lien purchasers could potentially befaced with a very short window in which to foreclose on a lien, given the required noticeand redemption periods to which they are subject. It is likely that the resulting risk to thepurchasers of losing the benefit of their liens altogether would have discouragedprospective purchasers and significantly impaired the City's ability to sell its tax liens, incontravention of the very purpose of the legislation.
We also reject defendants' contention that Supreme Court erred in granting summaryjudgment to plaintiff because a material issue of fact was raised as to whether they wereentitled to an offset for a purported tax overpayment to plaintiff with regard to a differentproperty. Even accepting as true defendants' claim of entitlement to an offset, the properremedy is an order of reference to determine the amounts owed (see 1855 E. Tremont Corp. vCollado Holdings LLC, 102 AD3d 567 [2013]), which is precisely whatSupreme Court ordered here.
Defendants' remaining contentions have been considered and found to be unavailing.
Lahtinen, J.P., McCarthy and Egan Jr., JJ., concur. Ordered that the order is affirmed,with costs.