Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1985

Sixteen Eighty West 7th Corp. v. Board of Estimate

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York · Decided March 11, 1985

109 A.D.2d 799; 486 N.Y.S.2d 311; 1985 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 47294

Cases that cite this one

9 later published cases cite this decision.

Josephine Weigner v. The City of New York (2d Cir. 1988)
Smerecki v. Keough (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2012)
Smerecki v. Keough (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2012)
Goofy's Inc. v. Board of Estimate (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 1990)
195 South 4th Street Realty Corp. v. City of New York (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 1990)
McDonuts Real Estate Ltd. v. Board of Estimate (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 1989)
Pig's Ear 515 Myrtle Avenue, Inc. v. New York City Board of Estimate (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 1989)
Witter v. New York City Board of Estimate (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 1989)
Kaufman v. City of New York (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 1987)

This list shows which later cases cite this one. It does not say how they treated it, and no review of that has been done. Not a substitute for Shepard’s or KeyCite — verify before relying.

Opinion of the Court

— In a proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78 to review a determination of the Board of Estimate dated December 2,1982, *800which denied petitioner’s application for discretionary redemption of certain real property from in rem city ownership, the appeal is from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Hirsch, J.), entered November 30, 1983, which dismissed the petition.

Judgment affirmed, with costs.

Inasmuch as petitioner was continuously delinquent in paying taxes on the subject property while he owned the same, failed to take advantage of the four-month “mandatory” redemption period (Administrative Code of City of New York § D17-25.0 [f]) and waited until the discretionary 20-month period had nearly expired (Administrative Code § D17-25.0 [g]) before applying for a release of the city’s interest in said property, we agree with Special Term that respondent’s determination was not arbitrary, capricious or irrational (Solomon v City of New York Dept. of Gen. Servs., 94 AD2d 283; Benigno v City of New York, 123 Misc 2d 375). Such decisions, absent evidence of illegality, rest within the sound judgment of the Board (Matter of Dwyer v Lindsay, 23 NY2d 562; Benigno v City of New York, supra). O’Connor, J. P., Rubin, Lawrence and Eiber, JJ., concur.

Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.