Carreras-Negron v. Gutierrez

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Carreras-Negron v. Gutierrez

17 A.D.3d 105, 791 N.Y.S.2d 825, 2005 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3454

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

DecidedApril 5, 2005

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 17 A.D.3d 105 (Carreras-Negron v. Gutierrez) 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

Carreras-Negron v. Gutierrez, 17 A.D.3d 105, 791 N.Y.S.2d 825, 2005 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3454 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2005).

Pincite

Opinion

Order, Supreme Court, Bronx County (Douglas E. McKeon, J.), entered September 16, 2004, which denied petitioner’s application to enjoin a sheriffs sale of the judgment debtor’s real property, unanimously affirmed, with costs.

Petitioner, as the subsequent purchaser, was on notice of the judgment debtor’s sale of the property, despite the apparent difference in the given names of the seller and judgment debtor (see H. R. & C. Co., Inc. v Smith, 242 NY 267 [1926]). Although not addressed by the IAS court, we note that allegations regarding the sham nature of petitioner’s purchase were unrebutted, despite her opportunity to do so. Concur—Buckley, EJ., Tom, Andrias, Friedman and Sullivan, JJ.

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

Order, Supreme Court, Bronx County (Douglas E. McKeon, J.), entered September 16, 2004, which denied petitioner’s application to enjoin a sheriffs sale of the judgment debtor’s real property, unanimously affirmed, with costs.

Petitioner, as the subsequent purchaser, was on notice of the judgment debtor’s sale of the property, despite the apparent difference in the given names of the seller and judgment debtor (see H. R. & C. Co., Inc. v Smith, 242 NY 267 [1926]). Although not addressed by the IAS court, we note that allegations regarding the sham nature of petitioner’s purchase were unrebutted, despite her opportunity to do so. Concur—Buckley, EJ., Tom, Andrias, Friedman and Sullivan, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

17 A.D.3d 105, 791 N.Y.S.2d 825, 2005 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3454, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/carreras-negron-v-gutierrez-nyappdiv-2005.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack