KENNETH KANTER v. ELIZABETH KUMBARTSKY, et al.
Annotate this CaseNOT FOR PUBLICATION WITHOUT THE
APPROVAL OF THE APPELLATE DIVISION
SUPERIOR COURT OF NEW JERSEY
APPELLATE DIVISION
DOCKET NO. A-2085-04T12085-04T1
KENNETH KANTER,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
v.
ELIZABETH KUMBARTSKY, her heirs,
devisees, personal representatives
and their or any of their successors
in right title and interest; MR.
ELIZABETH KUMBARTSKY (a fictitious
name), his heirs, devisees, personal
representatives and their or any of
their successors in right title and
interest; JOSEPHINE YANIERO;
CATHERINE FALLER; JEROME L. LEIBOWITZ
as Trustee for ELIZABETH KUMBARTSKY
and as Administrator C.T.A. of the
Estate of Nicholas Zappia; and
STATE OF NEW JERSEY,
Defendants-Respondents.
_________________________________________
Argued September 21, 2005 - Decided
Before Judges Wefing, Fuentes and Graves.
On appeal from Superior Court of New
Jersey, Chancery Division, Bergen
County, Docket No. F-3332-04.
Kenneth Kanter, appellant, argued the
cause pro se.
Robert Ferraro argued the cause for
respondent Josephine Yaniero (Bruno &
Ferraro, attorneys; Mr. Ferraro, of
counsel; Salvatore R. Vargo, on the brief).
PER CURIAM
Plaintiff, Kenneth Kanter, appeals a determination of the Chancery Division General Equity Part, finding defendant, Josephine Yaniero, was entitled to redeem a tax sale certificate under N.J.S.A. 54:5-54. The trial court held that Yaniero was an owner of the property, by virtue of a previous judicial declaration giving her a 20% interest in her father's estate. Plaintiff argues that the trial court erred, because Yaniero's interest in the estate did not transform her into an owner of the property, entitled to redeem the tax sale certificate.
We reject plaintiff's argument and affirm for substantially the same reasons given by Judge Doyne in his written decision dated October 22, 2004.
Affirmed.
Plaintiff's motion to strike defendant's amended appendix is denied.
(continued)
(continued)
2
A-2085-04T1
October 6, 2005
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.