In Matter of Harner v. County of Tioga (5 NY3d 136 [2005]), the New York Court of Appeals reiterated the United States Supreme Court's holding in Mullane, by stating its due process requirement that "notice [must be] reasonably calculated, under all the circumstances, to apprise interested parties of the pendency of the action and afford them an opportunity to present their objections." (Harner at 140, citing Mullane at 314.) The Court of Appeals opined that "due process is a flexible concept, requiring a case-by-case analysis that measures the reasonableness of a municipality's actions in seeking to provide adequate notice." (Harner at 140.) In Harner, the County found that the notice was proper because Tioga County had sent notice by both regular and certified mail, and while the certified mail was returned as "unclaimed," the regular mail was not. (Harner at 139.) Because the landowner bore the responsibility of updating his address to protect his ownership interests, Tioga County was justified in assuming that adequate notice had been given when the regular mail was not returned from the last known address on record, and that Harner was merely attempting to avoid notice by ignoring the certified mailings. (Harner at 141.)