Cadlerock Joint Venture, L.P. v. McHugh

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Cadlerock Joint Venture, L.P. v. McHugh

5 A.D.3d 295, 773 N.Y.S.2d 538, 2004 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3456

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

DecidedMarch 25, 2004

StatusPublished

This text of 5 A.D.3d 295 (Cadlerock Joint Venture, L.P. v. McHugh) 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

Cadlerock Joint Venture, L.P. v. McHugh, 5 A.D.3d 295, 773 N.Y.S.2d 538, 2004 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3456 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2004).

Pincite

Opinion

Order, Supreme Court, Bronx County (Howard Silver, J.), entered December 16, 2002, which, in a mortgage foreclosure action, granted defendants’ motion to vacate the deficiency judgment entered against them, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

Although the order on appeal states that the IAS court found that plaintiffs service of its motion for a deficiency judgment was “defective,” the clear import of the IAS court’s decision, made after a traverse hearing, is that neither defendant obtained any kind of notice of such motion within the 90-day period, commencing with delivery of the referee’s deed, for making such a motion (RPAPL 1371 [2]; see Arbor Natl. Commercial Mtge. v Carmans Plaza, 305 AD2d 622, 622-623 [2003]). Upon review of the record, we too find insufficient evidence to establish that either defendant obtained actual notice of the motion within the 90-day period. Such failure of service is a complete bar to the entry of a deficiency judgment (id. at 623; D’Ambra v Haynor, 293 AD2d 858 [2002]; compare Columbus Realty Inv. Corp. v Weng-Heng Tsiang, 226 AD2d 259 [1996]). Concur—Buckley, P.J., Nardelli, Saxe and Marlow, JJ.

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

Order, Supreme Court, Bronx County (Howard Silver, J.), entered December 16, 2002, which, in a mortgage foreclosure action, granted defendants’ motion to vacate the deficiency judgment entered against them, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

Although the order on appeal states that the IAS court found that plaintiffs service of its motion for a deficiency judgment was “defective,” the clear import of the IAS court’s decision, made after a traverse hearing, is that neither defendant obtained any kind of notice of such motion within the 90-day period, commencing with delivery of the referee’s deed, for making such a motion (RPAPL 1371 [2]; see Arbor Natl. Commercial Mtge. v Carmans Plaza, 305 AD2d 622, 622-623 [2003]). Upon review of the record, we too find insufficient evidence to establish that either defendant obtained actual notice of the motion within the 90-day period. Such failure of service is a complete bar to the entry of a deficiency judgment (id. at 623; D’Ambra v Haynor, 293 AD2d 858 [2002]; compare Columbus Realty Inv. Corp. v Weng-Heng Tsiang, 226 AD2d 259 [1996]). Concur—Buckley, P.J., Nardelli, Saxe and Marlow, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

5 A.D.3d 295, 773 N.Y.S.2d 538, 2004 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3456, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/cadlerock-joint-venture-lp-v-mchugh-nyappdiv-2004.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack