Chemical Bank v. McGill

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Chemical Bank v. McGill

262 A.D.2d 131, 693 N.Y.S.2d 8, 1999 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 6755

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

DecidedJune 15, 1999

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 262 A.D.2d 131 (Chemical Bank v. McGill) 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

Chemical Bank v. McGill, 262 A.D.2d 131, 693 N.Y.S.2d 8, 1999 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 6755 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1999).

Pincite

Opinion

—Order, Supreme Court, Bronx County (Alan Saks, J.), entered April 20, 1998, which granted plaintiffs motion for a writ of assistance (RPAPL 221) against defendant-appellant, unanimously affirmed, with costs.

The claims that appellant raises in opposition to the writ of assistance, including fraud in the procurement of the mortgage, irregularities in the foreclosure sale and deprivation of constitutional rights in the foreclosure action, are precluded as a matter of res judicata by the unappealed judgment of foreclosure (see, Bank of N. Y. v Route 312 Dev. Corp., 185 AD2d 582, lv dismissed 80 NY2d 1024). We have considered appellant’s other arguments and find them to be without merit. Concur— Rosenberger, J. P., Tom, Rubin, Saxe and Buckley, JJ.

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

—Order, Supreme Court, Bronx County (Alan Saks, J.), entered April 20, 1998, which granted plaintiffs motion for a writ of assistance (RPAPL 221) against defendant-appellant, unanimously affirmed, with costs.

The claims that appellant raises in opposition to the writ of assistance, including fraud in the procurement of the mortgage, irregularities in the foreclosure sale and deprivation of constitutional rights in the foreclosure action, are precluded as a matter of res judicata by the unappealed judgment of foreclosure (see, Bank of N. Y. v Route 312 Dev. Corp., 185 AD2d 582, lv dismissed 80 NY2d 1024). We have considered appellant’s other arguments and find them to be without merit. Concur— Rosenberger, J. P., Tom, Rubin, Saxe and Buckley, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

262 A.D.2d 131, 693 N.Y.S.2d 8, 1999 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 6755, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/chemical-bank-v-mcgill-nyappdiv-1999.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack