Barclays Bank of New York, N.A. v. Strathmore Five Realty Co.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Barclays Bank of New York, N.A. v. Strathmore Five Realty Co.

262 A.D.2d 591, 691 N.Y.S.2d 892, 1999 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 7655

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

DecidedJune 28, 1999

StatusPublished

This text of 262 A.D.2d 591 (Barclays Bank of New York, N.A. v. Strathmore Five Realty Co.) 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

Barclays Bank of New York, N.A. v. Strathmore Five Realty Co., 262 A.D.2d 591, 691 N.Y.S.2d 892, 1999 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 7655 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1999).

Pincite

Opinion

—In an action to foreclose a mortgage, the plaintiff appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Suffolk County (D’Emilio, J.), dated December 16, 1998, which granted the motion of the defendant Alfred Barone to vacate a deficiency judgment entered against him on March 12, 1998.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, without costs or disbursements.

. Contrary to the appellant’s argument, the Supreme Court was not precluded, as a matter of law, from granting the motion of the defendant Alfred Barone to vacate an improper deficiency judgment entered against him on March 12, 1998 (see, CPLR 5015 [a] [5]; Ciminelli Constr. Co. v City of Buffalo, 110 AD2d 1075, 1076; Barclays Bank of v Strathmore Five Realty Co., 245 AD2d 406).

The appellant’s remaining contentions are without merit. Bracken, J. P., O’Brien, Thompson and Sullivan, JJ., concur.

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

—In an action to foreclose a mortgage, the plaintiff appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Suffolk County (D’Emilio, J.), dated December 16, 1998, which granted the motion of the defendant Alfred Barone to vacate a deficiency judgment entered against him on March 12, 1998.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, without costs or disbursements.

. Contrary to the appellant’s argument, the Supreme Court was not precluded, as a matter of law, from granting the motion of the defendant Alfred Barone to vacate an improper deficiency judgment entered against him on March 12, 1998 (see, CPLR 5015 [a] [5]; Ciminelli Constr. Co. v City of Buffalo, 110 AD2d 1075, 1076; Barclays Bank of v Strathmore Five Realty Co., 245 AD2d 406).

The appellant’s remaining contentions are without merit. Bracken, J. P., O’Brien, Thompson and Sullivan, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

262 A.D.2d 591, 691 N.Y.S.2d 892, 1999 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 7655, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/barclays-bank-of-new-york-na-v-strathmore-five-realty-co-nyappdiv-1999.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack