Battista v. Liuzzi

15 A.D.2d 910, 225 N.Y.S.2d 769, 1962 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 10766
Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York·Decided March 27, 1962·Published·Cited by 3 cases

Opinion

[911]*911[T]he judicial sale of real property must conform to the judgment to sell and the terms of sale may not deviate therefrom”. (Zouppas v. Yannikidou, 16 A D 2d 52, 55; Becker v. Muehlig, 221 App. Div. 512, affd. 248 N. Y. 543; cf. Dicianni v. Wrong, 224 App. Div. 621.) On the argument of this appeal able counsel for the appellants frankly, and commendably, stated that they were seeking only the reimbursement of taxes paid in disobedience to the terms of the judgment, and the repayment of a duplicated interest payment. Undoubtedly a like fair and co-operative attitude by others intimately concerned would lead to an early resolution of the differences which exist, and expedite the obtaining of necessary judicial approval. Settle order on notice. Concur—• Rabin, J. P., Valente, McNally, Stevens and Steuer, JJ.

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

Battista v. Liuzzi, 15 A.D.2d 910, 225 N.Y.S.2d 769, 1962 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 10766 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1962).

15 A.D.2d 910 (Battista v. Liuzzi) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Bank of New York v. Love
3 A.D.3d 303 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2004)
United States v. East Ridge Associates
295 F. Supp. 2d 101 (D. Maine, 2003)