Nelson v. City of New York

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

• holding that notice of foreclosure was sufficient because the city had \taken steps to notify appellants of the arrearages and foreclosure proceedings and their agent having received such notices\
• stating that “relief from the hardship imposed by a state statute is the responsibility of the state legislature and not of the courts”
• noting that the relevant ordinance did not preclude the owner from obtaining surplus proceeds
• finding no Takings Clause violation because New York City had a process for returning surplus value after it sold foreclosed property
• finding that because the New York City ordinance did not absolutely preclude an owner from obtaining the surplus proceeds of a judicial sale, but instead simply defined the process through which the owner could claim the surplus, we found no Takings Clause Violation
• rejecting a similar argument that municipal authorities “should have known from the state of the records . . . that mailed notice would probably be ineffective.”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).