71 N.Y.2d 164 (1987)
r
r
Due process requires that a property owner whose name and address are known must receive actual notice of a tax lien sale that may result in the loss of their property, as constructive notice by publication alone is insufficient.
r
r
Summary
r
Helene McCann and another homeowner, Rinaldo, challenged the forfeiture of their homes due to unpaid taxes under the Nassau County Administrative Code. The Code only provided for notice of tax lien sales via publication. McCann lost her $175,000 home for an $864.50 tax debt, while Rinaldo lost a $90,000 home for a $463.92 tax debt. The New York Court of Appeals held that the Code’s failure to provide actual notice of the tax lien sales to the homeowners, whose names and addresses were known, violated their due process rights under the Fourteenth Amendment. The court emphasized that a tax lien sale initiates proceedings that can result in forfeiture of property, thus requiring actual notice.
r
r
Facts
r
r
Helene McCann owned a home worth approximately $175,000. She failed to pay $864.50 in property taxes. Similarly, Rinaldo owned a home worth over $90,000 and failed to pay $463.92 in taxes.r
Nassau County, pursuant to its Administrative Code, published notice of a tax lien sale in a newspaper of general circulation. Neither McCann nor Rinaldo received actual notice of this sale. Shirley Stone purchased the tax liens on both properties at the sale.r
After two years, Stone demanded and received deeds of conveyance from the Nassau County Treasurer, John Scaduto, transferring absolute title of the homes to her. The only notice McCann and Rinaldo received prior to the conveyance was a three-month notice to redeem, sent via certified mail.r
r
r
Procedural History
r
r
Both McCann and Rinaldo initiated Article 78 proceedings seeking to vacate the deeds and redeem their properties, arguing a denial of due process.r
In McCann’s case, Special Term dismissed the petition, and the Appellate Division affirmed.r
In Rinaldo’s case, Special Term granted the petition, but the Appellate Division reversed.r
The Appellate Division adhered to its original dispositions after reargument in both cases. The New York Court of Appeals then consolidated the appeals.r
r
r
Issue(s)
r
r
Whether the Nassau County Administrative Code’s practice of providing only constructive notice (publication) of a tax lien sale, without actual notice to the property owner, violates the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment when the owner’s name and address are known.r
r
r
Holding
r
r
Yes, because when the government acts in a way that substantially affects a known property owner’s interest, due process requires actual notice. Constructive notice alone is insufficient in this situation. According to the court, “where the interest of a property owner will be substantially affected by an act of government, and where the owner’s name and address are known, due process requires that actual notice be given.”r
r
r
Court’s Reasoning
r
r
The Court of Appeals reasoned that the traditional distinction between in personam and in rem proceedings regarding notice requirements had been eroded by the Supreme Court’s decision in Mullane v. Central Hanover Bank & Trust Co., 339 U.S. 306 (1950). Mullane established that due process requires