London v. Hammel, 30 N.Y.2d 729 (1972)

A tax deed is void if the County Treasurer fails to include in the published notice of unredeemed real estate the additional sum of taxes paid by the purchaser, when that payment was known to the Treasurer at the time of publication, as strict compliance with the statute is required to protect the owner’s right to redemption.

Summary

This case concerns a dispute over the validity of a tax deed. The plaintiff, London, sought to redeem property sold at a tax sale. The County Treasurer’s published notice of unredeemed property failed to include taxes paid by the purchaser, Hammel, a fact known to the Treasurer at the time of publication. The Court of Appeals held that this omission was a substantial deviation from the statutory mandate, rendering the tax deed void. The Court emphasized that statutory provisions for the benefit of the owner should be strictly construed in their favor, even if the owner receives correct notice through other means.

Facts

The case revolves around London’s attempt to redeem property sold at a tax sale. Hammel, the purchaser at the tax sale, paid additional taxes on the property that were not paid by London, the owner of record. When the County Treasurer published the notice of unredeemed real estate, as required by the Suffolk County Tax Act and the Real Property Tax Law, the notice failed to include the amount of these additional taxes paid by Hammel. The County Treasurer knew of Hammel’s payment at the time of publication.

Procedural History

The procedural history is not explicitly detailed in the memorandum opinion, but it can be inferred that London initially brought an action in the Supreme Court, Suffolk County, seeking to redeem the property and challenging the validity of the tax deed. The Appellate Division’s order was appealed to the New York Court of Appeals.

Issue(s)

Whether the County Treasurer’s failure to include the additional taxes paid by the tax sale purchaser in the published notice of unredeemed real estate constitutes a substantial deviation from the statutory requirements, rendering the tax deed void and entitling the owner to redeem the property.

Holding

Yes, because the failure to include the additional taxes paid by the purchaser in the published notice, when known to the Treasurer, is a substantial deviation from the statutory mandate, thus rendering the tax deed void and allowing the owner to redeem the property.

Court’s Reasoning

The Court of Appeals based its decision on the strict requirements of the Suffolk County Tax Act and the Real Property Tax Law regarding notice of unredeemed real estate. Section 52(1) of the Suffolk County Tax Act requires publication of a notice containing “the amount necessary to redeem the same computed to the last day in which such redemption can be made.” Section 75 allows the purchaser to pay unpaid taxes, which the owner must then pay at the time of redemption, according to § 1010(1)(a) of the Real Property Tax Law. The court found the County Treasurer’s omission to be a substantial deviation from the statutory mandate, reasoning that the statutory provision is “for the benefit of the owner” and therefore “should be strictly construed in his favor.” The court explicitly stated that this principle holds true “even if he may have eventually received notice of the correct amount by methods other than required by the statute.” The court cited prior cases such as Rogers v. Pact Realty Corp., Stebila v. Mitrany, and Clason v. Baldwin to support the proposition that strict compliance with statutory notice requirements is necessary to protect the owner’s right of redemption. The court did not elaborate on dissenting or concurring opinions, as the decision was unanimous.