Belsid Holding Corp. v. Dahm

12 A.D.2d 499, 207 N.Y.S.2d 91, 1960 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 7105
CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York
DecidedNovember 14, 1960
StatusPublished
Cited by20 cases

This text of 12 A.D.2d 499 (Belsid Holding Corp. v. Dahm) 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
Belsid Holding Corp. v. Dahm, 12 A.D.2d 499, 207 N.Y.S.2d 91, 1960 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 7105 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1960).

Opinion

In an action [500]*500to foreclose a mortgage on real property, the plaintiff appeals from two orders of the Supreme Court, Westchester County, dated July 25, 1960 and August 5, 1960, respectively. The first order, dated July 25, 1960, grants the motion of defendant Frank C. Dahm and permits him to pay: (1) the entire unpaid balance of principal and interest owing on the mortgage, (2) the costs of the action, (3) the amount advanced for insurance premiums, and (4) the receiver’s fee and expenses; and directs, inter alia, that upon the making of such payments the complaint be dismissed. The second order, dated August 5, 1960, grants plaintiff’s motion for reargument, but adheres to the original determination. Order of August 5, 1960, affirmed, with $10 costs and disbursements. Appeal from order of July 25, 1960, dismissed, without costs. This order was superseded by the later order of August 5, 1960. The owner of the equity of redemption has a right to redeem at any time before an actual sale under a judgment of foreclosure (Nutt v. Cuming, 155 N. Y. 309; 15 Carmody-Wait, New York Practice, p. 322, § 193, and cases there cited). The amount permitted to be paid here was not merely the total of the installments of principal and interest as to which there had been a default in payment, but the entire unpaid balance of the bond and mortgage. Such balance had become due by reason of the plaintiff mortgagee’s exercise of his option under the mortgage to declare the entire balance due because of the defaults on the payment of the installments. Nolan, P. J., Kleinfeld, Christ, Pette and Brennan, JJ., concur.

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

Related

Brookmar Corp. v. Tax Commissioner
13 Misc. 3d 772 (New York Supreme Court, 2006)
NYCTL 1996-1 Trust v. LFJ Realty Corp.
307 A.D.2d 957 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2003)
GMAC Mortgage Corp. v. Tuck
299 A.D.2d 315 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2002)
United Capital Corp. v. 183 Lorraine Street Associates
251 A.D.2d 400 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1998)
Sloane v. Gape
216 A.D.2d 285 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1995)
Moore v. Aegon Reinsurance Co. of America
196 A.D.2d 250 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1994)
In Re Liggett
118 B.R. 213 (S.D. New York, 1990)
Bowery Savings Bank v. Harbert Offset Corp.
147 Misc. 2d 633 (New York Supreme Court, 1990)
Finance Investment Co. v. Gossweiler
145 A.D.2d 463 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1988)
Matter of Cretella
47 B.R. 382 (E.D. New York, 1984)
In Re Cretella
42 B.R. 526 (E.D. New York, 1984)
In Re Ellis
40 B.R. 760 (E.D. New York, 1984)
National Bank of North America v. Cohen
89 A.D.2d 725 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1982)
First Federal Savings & Loan Ass'n v. Smith
83 A.D.2d 601 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1981)
In Re LYNCH
12 B.R. 533 (W.D. Wisconsin, 1981)
In Re Pearson
10 B.R. 189 (E.D. New York, 1981)
In Re Smith
7 B.R. 106 (W.D. New York, 1980)
In Re Butchman
4 B.R. 379 (S.D. New York, 1980)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
12 A.D.2d 499, 207 N.Y.S.2d 91, 1960 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 7105, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/belsid-holding-corp-v-dahm-nyappdiv-1960.