FAILED TO SHOW THAT “NOTICE TO REDEEM” HAD NOT BEEN PROPERLY SERVED
Plaintiff filed an action with the Nassau County Supreme Court alleging that a tax deed, transferring certain commercial real estate to the Defendant, was null and void. Apparently, the plaintiff alleged that the County had failed to issue a proper “notice to redeem” as required by Nassau County Administrative Code § 5-51.0(c).
When the defendant moved for pre-trial dismissal of the litigation, (via a motion for summary judgment), and the plaintiff moved to amend its complaint to add another entity as a party-plaintiff, the judge granted relief in the defendant's favor, while denying the plaintiff’s application.
On appeal, the Appellate Division, Second Department, noted that the plaintiff had failed to competently rebut the defendant’s proof that the notice to redeem had been served in accordance with governing law and the “constitutional requirements of due process.”
And while motions to amend are usually granted in the absence of “prejudice or surprise to the opposing party,” the AD2 didn’t think an amendment was appropriate here because the plaintiff sought to add an entity that was “barred by judicial estoppel from pursuing a claim in this matter.”
As a result, the underlying order was affirmed, and the case was sent back to the court below for the entry of a judgment in the defendant’s favor.
Bet the plaintiff didn't think that was a good deed, either.
# # #