discussed Cited as authority (rule) Johnson v. County of Erie The County presented proof that notice of the foreclosure was sent to plaintiff and her husband at the subject property, thus giving rise to the presumption that plaintiff received the notice (see Law v Benedict, 197 AD2d 808, 810 [1993]; Best v City of Rochester, 195 AD2d 1073, 1074 [1993]).

discussed Cited as authority (rule) Citibank v. Tebsherany By submitting the affidavits of service of Bedell stating that he mailed the notice of redemption to plaintiff at two addresses, defendants established that the notice of redemption was sent to plaintiff in compliance with defendants’ due process obligations (see generally Kennedy v Mossafa, 100 NY2d 1, 8 [2003]; Matter of Foreclosure of Tax Liens, 278 AD2d 814, 815 [2000]). “[Plaintiff’s denial of receipt of the notice, standing alone, is insufficient to rebut the presumption that the notice was received by plaintiff” (Best v City of Rochester, 195 AD2d 1073, 1074 [1993]; see RPTL 113…

discussed Cited "see, e.g." 114 Aldrich, Inc. v. City of Buffalo That notice was sufficient (see, RPTL 1124 [2]; see also, Matter of Tax Foreclosure Action No. 34, 191 AD2d 679 ), and mere denial of receipt of the notice, standing alone, is insufficient to rebut the presumption that notice was received by plaintiff (see, Best v City of Rochester, 195 AD2d 1073,1074 ).