Congregation Yetev Lev D’Satmar, Inc. v. County of Sullivan, 59 N.Y.2d 418 (1983)
Due process requires that notice of a tax sale be provided to parties with readily ascertainable substantial property interests, but an assessor is not required to make extraordinary efforts to discover the identity and whereabouts of the owner.
Summary
Congregation Yetev Lev D’Satmar, Inc. (plaintiff) claimed ownership of a six-acre parcel of land through adverse possession. Sullivan County (defendant) had acquired the land through a tax sale due to unpaid taxes and subsequently sold it to Carnesi & Son, Inc. The plaintiff argued the tax sale was unconstitutional due to lack of proper notice. The Court of Appeals held that the assessor acted reasonably in providing notice based on the available records, and the plaintiff’s interest was not readily ascertainable, thus the tax deed was valid. The court emphasized that assessors are not required to make extraordinary efforts to identify owners beyond diligent inquiry of readily available records.
Facts
Plaintiff owned a 21-acre parcel adjacent to a six-acre parcel. Plaintiff purchased its land in 1971 from White Lake Sanruth Corporation, with the six-acre parcel explicitly excepted from the deed. The six-acre parcel was landlocked within the 21-acre parcel. Until 1973, both parcels were assessed as one. In 1973, the assessor listed them separately, assessing the six-acre parcel to White Lake Sanruth Corporation. The 1973 taxes on the six-acre parcel were not paid, leading to a tax sale to Sullivan County in 1974. The county then sold the six-acre parcel to Carnesi & Son, Inc. Plaintiff claimed ownership of the six-acre parcel by adverse possession.
Procedural History
The Trial Term found in favor of the defendants, holding that Frances Ettinger held record title, the plaintiff had not acquired ownership by adverse possession, and the plaintiff failed to prove the tax proceedings were irregular. The Appellate Division reversed, finding the plaintiff had acquired ownership by adverse possession and that the tax proceedings were constitutionally defective because of lack of personal notice to the plaintiff. The Court of Appeals reversed the Appellate Division’s order and reinstated the Supreme Court’s judgment.
Issue(s)
Whether the tax sale was unconstitutional because the County failed to provide adequate notice to the plaintiff, who claimed ownership of the property through adverse possession, given that the County relied on record information indicating ownership by another party.
Holding
No, because the assessor made diligent inquiry based on available records, and the plaintiff’s claim of ownership through adverse possession was not readily ascertainable through those records.
Court’s Reasoning
The court reasoned that due process requires notice reasonably calculated to apprise interested parties of pending actions, but does not mandate personal notice in all circumstances. Relying on Mullane v. Central Hanover Trust Co., the Court acknowledged the balancing act between the State’s interests and the individual’s rights. The Court distinguished Mennonite Bd. of Missions v. Adams, emphasizing that the assessor is charged with knowledge of facts revealed by property and tax records, and must make “diligent inquiry” to ascertain property owners, as per Real Property Tax Law § 500.
The Court found the assessor acted reasonably by relying on the recorded deed, which excepted the six-acre parcel from the conveyance to the plaintiff, indicating the corporation retained ownership. This inference was consistent with the tax history. Mailing notice to the corporation at its listed address satisfied due process requirements. The court stated, “The assessor was not required to make extraordinary efforts to discover the identity and whereabouts of the owner”.
The court rejected the argument for mandatory notice to the occupant, stating occupancy alone does not create a constitutional right to personal notice absent a substantial and readily identifiable property interest. The court held that the assessor’s procedures aligned with available information, meeting constitutional standards, and the plaintiff’s claim was not “readily ascertainable”. The court also noted the plaintiff’s knowledge of tax levies and the parcel’s subdivision for tax purposes.
The Court concluded that the tax deed was conclusive evidence of a regular tax sale, given that more than two years had elapsed before the action was initiated, citing Real Property Tax Law § 1020, subd. 3.