Legal Opinion
Rupersam Realty Corp. v. Larpeg Realty Corp.
Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York
Decided April 18, 1938PublishedCited by 3 opinions
1Opinion of the CourtDavis, J.
The plaintiff’s assignor purchased of defendant village of Mamaroneck a tax lien on certain property therein, and the hen was transferred to it under the provisions of section 133 of the Village Law (added by Laws of 1934, chap. 17). It was stated in the transfer that the owner “ is entitled to all the privileges and benefits of Said act.” No other statute wsis referred to. So on its face this tax hen was subject only to all taxes and assessments still unpaid and to all taxes and assessments which may have become a hen subsequent to the hen of the taxes or assessments for which the tax hen…
2Cases cited3 opinions
- Silkman v. Board of Water CommissionersNew York Court of Appeals · 1897
- Loring v. Commissioner of Public WorksMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1928
- Sayer v. . City of New YorkNew York Court of Appeals · 1913
3Cited by3 opinions
- State University of New York v. PattersonAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1973
- Dunn v. E. L. Gayvert & Co.Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1941
- Rupersam Realty Corp. v. Larpeg Realty Corp.Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1938