Berman v. Blooming Farms Joint Venture

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Berman v. Blooming Farms Joint Venture

50 A.D.2d 558, 375 N.Y.S.2d 22, 1975 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 12302

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

DecidedNovember 3, 1975

StatusPublished

This text of 50 A.D.2d 558 (Berman v. Blooming Farms Joint Venture) 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

Berman v. Blooming Farms Joint Venture, 50 A.D.2d 558, 375 N.Y.S.2d 22, 1975 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 12302 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1975).

Pincite

Opinion

— In a mortgage foreclosure action, defendant Blooming Farms Joint Venture appeals, as limited by its brief, from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Orange County, dated July 18, 1975, as granted plaintiffs’ motion for summary judgment as against it. Order reversed insofar as appealed from, with $20 costs and disbursements; motion denied as to appellant and action severed so as to permit it to proceed against appellant separately. In our view, under the peculiar facts and circumstances shown, appellant is entitled to its day in court to explore the possibility that the mortgagees’ conduct in accelerating the mortgage debt may have constituted overreaching. Hopkins, Acting P. J., Cohalan, Christ, Brennan and Shapiro, JJ., concur.

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

— In a mortgage foreclosure action, defendant Blooming Farms Joint Venture appeals, as limited by its brief, from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Orange County, dated July 18, 1975, as granted plaintiffs’ motion for summary judgment as against it. Order reversed insofar as appealed from, with $20 costs and disbursements; motion denied as to appellant and action severed so as to permit it to proceed against appellant separately. In our view, under the peculiar facts and circumstances shown, appellant is entitled to its day in court to explore the possibility that the mortgagees’ conduct in accelerating the mortgage debt may have constituted overreaching. Hopkins, Acting P. J., Cohalan, Christ, Brennan and Shapiro, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

50 A.D.2d 558, 375 N.Y.S.2d 22, 1975 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 12302, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/berman-v-blooming-farms-joint-venture-nyappdiv-1975.