N.Y. Laws » CHAPTER Abandoned Property / ARTICLE Short Title; Declaration of Policy; Definitions
New York Consolidated Laws

N.Y. Abandoned Property Law § 102 (2026)

Declaration of policy

✓ current as of May 2026
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section NY-LEGnysenate.gov Justiaon Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar 
§ 102. Declaration of policy. It is hereby declared to be the policy
of the state, while protecting the interest of the owners thereof, to
utilize escheated lands and unclaimed property for the benefit of all
the people of the state, and this chapter shall be liberally construed
to accomplish such purpose.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 9 cases, 1985–2007 · leading case: Friar v. Vanguard Holding Corp., 125 A.D.2d 444 (N.Y. App. Div. 1986).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Friar v. Vanguard Holding Corp., 125 A.D.2d 444 (N.Y. App. Div. 1986). “, 179 F2d 896), we cannot say it was an abuse of discretion to dispose of the unclaimed funds in accordance with the scheme created by the Abandoned Property Law. In enacting the Abandoned Property Law, the Legislature declared it to be the policy of the State to utilize…”
Abrams v. Brady, 573 N.E.2d 556 (N.Y. 1991). · cites it 2× “The expressed policy of the State under the Abandoned Property Law is "to utilize escheated lands and unclaimed property for the benefit of all the people of the state” "while protecting the interest of the owners thereof’ (Abandoned Property Law § 102 [emphasis supplied]).”
Serio v. Hevesi, 40 A.D.3d 72 (N.Y. App. Div. 2007). “Abandoned Property Law § 102 provides: “It is hereby declared to be the policy of the state, while protecting the interest of the owners thereof, to utilize escheated lands and unclaimed property for the benefit of all the people of the state.”
In re Abrams, 134 Misc. 2d 841 (N.Y. Sup. Ct. 1986). “6, 1962), and its consequences spelled out and codified in the Abandoned Property Law (L 1943, ch 697), the declared policy of which, without surrendering any of the sovereign’s rights as to escheat, changed the emphasis from confiscation to custodial protection "for the benefit…”
Kudlack v. Landmark Realty Co., 115 A.D.2d 842 (N.Y. App. Div. 1985). “Paragraph 22 provided that if plaintiffs vacated the property under certain circumstances and left personal property or fixtures behind, ownership of these items would vest in the landlord.”
Metro. Life Ins. v. Off. of State Comptroller, 120 A.D.2d 140 (N.Y. App. Div. 1986). · cites it 2× “To resolve the ambiguity we need look no further than Abandoned Property Law § 102, for "[i]t is fundamental that a statute must be read with the *143 legislative goal in mind, so that controversies generated by ambiguities or gaps in the law may be resolved in accordance with…”
Kimberley's A Day Spa, Ltd. v. Hevesi, 11 Misc. 3d 954 (N.Y. Sup. Ct. 2006). “Thus, General Business Law § 396-i must be construed in a manner that is consistent with the purpose of Abandoned Property Law § 1315 which is to utilize unclaimed property for the benefit of all the people of the state (Abandoned Property Law § 102). The only interpretation…”
NYCTL 1996-1 Trust v. Nuthree Inc., 18 Misc. 3d 603 (N.Y. Sup. Ct. 2007). “, 125 AD2d 444, 446 [2d Dept 1986], citing Abandoned Property Law § 102.) The statute accomplishes its purpose by providing that the care and custody of abandoned property be assumed by the State Comptroller for the benefit of those entitled to receive it.”
In re the Est. of Gahan, 268 A.D.2d 473 (N.Y. App. Div. 2000). “This would serve to defeat the underlying policy of New York’s Abandoned Property Law, which is to utilize unclaimed property for the benefit of the people of this State “while protecting the interest of the owners thereof’ (Abandoned Property Law § 102). Finally, we reject the…”
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.