Central Funding Co. v. Dooley Waterproofing Co.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Central Funding Co. v. Dooley Waterproofing Co.

81 A.D.2d 571, 441 N.Y.S.2d 401, 1981 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 11054

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

DecidedApril 6, 1981

StatusPublished

This text of 81 A.D.2d 571 (Central Funding Co. v. Dooley Waterproofing Co.) 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

Central Funding Co. v. Dooley Waterproofing Co., 81 A.D.2d 571, 441 N.Y.S.2d 401, 1981 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 11054 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1981).

Pincite

Opinion

— In an action to foreclose a mortgage on 'real property, defendants Dooley Waterproofing Co., Inc., and Richard and Phyllis Dooley appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Nassau County, dated September 9, 1980, which denied their motion, inter alia, to (1) vacate a stipulation entered into by the plaintiff and the appellants on September 25, 1972, and (2) vacate a judgment of foreclosure and sale dated May 13, 1980. Order affirmed, with $50 costs and disbursements. Special Term did not abuse its discretion in denying appellants’ motion, inter alia, to vacate the stipulation entered into on September 25, 1972. Moreover, appellants have failed to establish the defense of usury by “ ‘clear evidence as to all the elements essential thereto’ ” (see Giventer v Arnow, 37 NY2d 305, 309). Damiani, J.P., Titone, Mangano and Rabin, JJ., concur.

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

— In an action to foreclose a mortgage on 'real property, defendants Dooley Waterproofing Co., Inc., and Richard and Phyllis Dooley appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Nassau County, dated September 9, 1980, which denied their motion, inter alia, to (1) vacate a stipulation entered into by the plaintiff and the appellants on September 25, 1972, and (2) vacate a judgment of foreclosure and sale dated May 13, 1980. Order affirmed, with $50 costs and disbursements. Special Term did not abuse its discretion in denying appellants’ motion, inter alia, to vacate the stipulation entered into on September 25, 1972. Moreover, appellants have failed to establish the defense of usury by “ ‘clear evidence as to all the elements essential thereto’ ” (see Giventer v Arnow, 37 NY2d 305, 309). Damiani, J.P., Titone, Mangano and Rabin, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

81 A.D.2d 571, 441 N.Y.S.2d 401, 1981 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 11054, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/central-funding-co-v-dooley-waterproofing-co-nyappdiv-1981.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack