ISCA Enterprises v. City of New York, 77 N.Y.2d 688 (1991)
r
r
A municipality’s notice procedures for in rem tax foreclosure actions, including notice by publication, mailing to owners who filed registration cards, and mailing to names and addresses on the assessment roll, satisfy due process requirements for property owners.
r
r
Summary
r
This case addresses the constitutionality of New York City’s “notice-by-request” procedure for in rem tax foreclosure actions. The Court of Appeals held that ISCA Enterprises, a mortgagee, had actual notice of the foreclosure action within the statutory period and was therefore barred from challenging the notice procedure. As for the Campbell plaintiffs (property owners), the Court found the City’s notice provisions, which included publication, mailing to those who filed registration cards, and mailing to the names/addresses on the assessment roll, satisfied due process. The Court emphasized the balance between the City’s burden and the owner’s responsibility to maintain current records.
r
r
Facts
r
ISCA Enterprises was a mortgagee on two parcels foreclosed upon by the City for tax delinquency. ISCA later became the owner of a third parcel that was also foreclosed upon. Although the City published notice and filed it with the County Clerk as required, ISCA did not receive actual notice until December 1983. Instead of bringing suit to set aside the tax deeds, ISCA applied for a release, which was denied in 1987, four years after learning of the foreclosure. The Campbell plaintiffs were owners of Manhattan real estate that the City foreclosed upon for tax delinquencies.
r
r
Procedural History
r
In the ISCA case, the Supreme Court dismissed ISCA’s action as time-barred, a ruling affirmed by the Appellate Division. In the Campbell case, the Supreme Court granted summary judgment to the plaintiffs, declaring the foreclosure deeds void, which was affirmed by the Appellate Division. Both cases were appealed to the New York Court of Appeals and consolidated for review.
r
r
Issue(s)
r
1. Whether ISCA’s action to challenge the foreclosure was barred by the Statute of Limitations.r
2. Whether the City’s notice provisions for in rem tax foreclosure actions, particularly the