Aubrey Equities, Inc. v. Goldberg

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Aubrey Equities, Inc. v. Goldberg

247 A.D.2d 253, 668 N.Y.S.2d 598, 1998 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 1060

CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York

DecidedFebruary 10, 1998

StatusPublished

Cited by9 cases

This text of 247 A.D.2d 253 (Aubrey Equities, Inc. v. Goldberg) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Aubrey Equities, Inc. v. Goldberg, 247 A.D.2d 253, 668 N.Y.S.2d 598, 1998 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 1060 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1998).

Pincite

Opinion

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Walter Tolub, J.), entered December 20, 1996, which, inter alia, granted plaintiffintervenor’s motion to reargue and renew a prior order of the same court and Justice entered May 10, 1996, and upon such reargument and renewal, vacated, cancelled and set aside said order, and restored title to the premises to plaintiff-intervenor, unanimously affirmed, with costs.

In this foreclosure action, the IAS Court properly found that intervenor, as a good faith purchaser for value, is entitled to retain title to the premises purchased from the Referee prior to this Court’s reversal of the judgment of foreclosure (212 AD2d 397), and that appellants, notwithstanding intervenor’s knowledge at the foreclosure sale that an appeal was pending, are relegated to an action for money damages on their underlying debt as they failed to seek a stay of enforcement of the foreclosure sale (CPLR 5523; see, Da Silva v Musso, 76 NY2d 436; see also, 13 Weinstein-Korn-Miller, NY Civ Frac 6501.12). We have considered appellants’ remaining arguments and find them to be without merit.

Concur — Sullivan, J. P., Milonas, Mazzarelli and Andrias, JJ.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Walter Tolub, J.), entered December 20, 1996, which, inter alia, granted plaintiffintervenor’s motion to reargue and renew a prior order of the same court and Justice entered May 10, 1996, and upon such reargument and renewal, vacated, cancelled and set aside said order, and restored title to the premises to plaintiff-intervenor, unanimously affirmed, with costs.

In this foreclosure action, the IAS Court properly found that intervenor, as a good faith purchaser for value, is entitled to retain title to the premises purchased from the Referee prior to this Court’s reversal of the judgment of foreclosure (212 AD2d 397), and that appellants, notwithstanding intervenor’s knowledge at the foreclosure sale that an appeal was pending, are relegated to an action for money damages on their underlying debt as they failed to seek a stay of enforcement of the foreclosure sale (CPLR 5523; see, Da Silva v Musso, 76 NY2d 436; see also, 13 Weinstein-Korn-Miller, NY Civ Frac 6501.12). We have considered appellants’ remaining arguments and find them to be without merit.

Concur — Sullivan, J. P., Milonas, Mazzarelli and Andrias, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

247 A.D.2d 253, 668 N.Y.S.2d 598, 1998 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 1060, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/aubrey-equities-inc-v-goldberg-nyappdiv-1998.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack