Bank Leumi Trust Co. v. Sibthorpe

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Bank Leumi Trust Co. v. Sibthorpe

161 A.D.2d 325

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

DecidedMay 10, 1990

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 161 A.D.2d 325 (Bank Leumi Trust Co. v. Sibthorpe) 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

Bank Leumi Trust Co. v. Sibthorpe, 161 A.D.2d 325 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1990).

Pincite

Opinion

Appeal from an order of Supreme Court, New York County (Burton Sherman, J.), entered January 27, 1989, which, inter alia, granted on default plaintiff’s motion for an order allowing it to withdraw its previous motion for attorneys’ fees, is dismissed as nonappealable, without costs; order of Supreme Court, New York County (Burton Sherman, J.), entered December 19, 1988, which denied defendants’ motion for an order canceling and discharging all mortgages held by plain[326]*326tiff on real property located at 6 Riverview Terrace, New York, New York, unanimously affirmed, with costs and disbursements.

The order appealed from, entered January 27, 1989, was granted on default. The proper remedy for defendants was to move to vacate the default pursuant to CPLR 5015 (Vasquez v Koret, Inc., 151 AD2d 448).

The issues raised with respect to defendants’ alleged satisfaction of the mortgages held by the plaintiff in connection with the subject property at 6 Riverview Terrace, New York, New York, were previously decided by this court, and our decision is res judicata (see, Bank Leumi Trust Co. v Sibthorp, 135 AD2d 476; Bank Leumi Trust Co. v Sibthorp, 116 AD2d 451). In addition, defendants have failed to provide adequate factual support with respect to their conclusory allegations that the plaintiff misapplied payments allegedly made after the abovesaid decisions. Concur—Murphy, P. J., Ross, Asch and Wallach, JJ.

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

Appeal from an order of Supreme Court, New York County (Burton Sherman, J.), entered January 27, 1989, which, inter alia, granted on default plaintiff’s motion for an order allowing it to withdraw its previous motion for attorneys’ fees, is dismissed as nonappealable, without costs; order of Supreme Court, New York County (Burton Sherman, J.), entered December 19, 1988, which denied defendants’ motion for an order canceling and discharging all mortgages held by plain[326]*326tiff on real property located at 6 Riverview Terrace, New York, New York, unanimously affirmed, with costs and disbursements.

The order appealed from, entered January 27, 1989, was granted on default. The proper remedy for defendants was to move to vacate the default pursuant to CPLR 5015 (Vasquez v Koret, Inc., 151 AD2d 448).

The issues raised with respect to defendants’ alleged satisfaction of the mortgages held by the plaintiff in connection with the subject property at 6 Riverview Terrace, New York, New York, were previously decided by this court, and our decision is res judicata (see, Bank Leumi Trust Co. v Sibthorp, 135 AD2d 476; Bank Leumi Trust Co. v Sibthorp, 116 AD2d 451). In addition, defendants have failed to provide adequate factual support with respect to their conclusory allegations that the plaintiff misapplied payments allegedly made after the abovesaid decisions. Concur—Murphy, P. J., Ross, Asch and Wallach, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

161 A.D.2d 325, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/bank-leumi-trust-co-v-sibthorpe-nyappdiv-1990.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack