Chemical Mortgage Co. v. Collier

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Chemical Mortgage Co. v. Collier

227 A.D.2d 202, 642 N.Y.S.2d 519, 1996 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4986

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

DecidedMay 9, 1996

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 227 A.D.2d 202 (Chemical Mortgage Co. v. Collier) 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 Mortgage Co. v. Collier, 227 A.D.2d 202, 642 N.Y.S.2d 519, 1996 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4986 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1996).

Pincite

Opinion

Order, Supreme Court, Bronx County (Hansel McGee, J.) entered March 8, 1995, which granted plaintiff’s motion for possession of the subject premises; order, same court (Luis Gonzalez, J.) entered on May 23, 1995, which, inter alia, denied defendant-appellant a stay pending appeal without undertaking; and, order, same court (Luis Gonzalez, J.) entered on or about September 18, 1995, which, inter alia, denied defendant-appellant’s motion for renewal, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

Defendant’s averments lacked even minimal clarity and specificity and did not warrant a hearing (cf., Empbanque Capital Corp. v Geathers, 224 AD2d 238). The sale effectively "g[a]ve full credit to the mortgagor for the amount of the mortgage balance plus the expenses of the sale” (Polish Natl. Alliance v White Eagle Hall Co., 98 AD2d 400, 407). Plaintiff’s failure to move to confirm the Referee’s report within the time period prescribed by RPAPL 1355 (2) was a mere irregularity which, in the absence of prejudice to any substantial right of a party, could properly be disregarded (Fidelity Bond & Mtge. Co. v Lucas, 135 AD2d 778). Concur — Sullivan, J. P., Ellerin, Ross, Nardelli and Williams, JJ.

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

Order, Supreme Court, Bronx County (Hansel McGee, J.) entered March 8, 1995, which granted plaintiff’s motion for possession of the subject premises; order, same court (Luis Gonzalez, J.) entered on May 23, 1995, which, inter alia, denied defendant-appellant a stay pending appeal without undertaking; and, order, same court (Luis Gonzalez, J.) entered on or about September 18, 1995, which, inter alia, denied defendant-appellant’s motion for renewal, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

Defendant’s averments lacked even minimal clarity and specificity and did not warrant a hearing (cf., Empbanque Capital Corp. v Geathers, 224 AD2d 238). The sale effectively "g[a]ve full credit to the mortgagor for the amount of the mortgage balance plus the expenses of the sale” (Polish Natl. Alliance v White Eagle Hall Co., 98 AD2d 400, 407). Plaintiff’s failure to move to confirm the Referee’s report within the time period prescribed by RPAPL 1355 (2) was a mere irregularity which, in the absence of prejudice to any substantial right of a party, could properly be disregarded (Fidelity Bond & Mtge. Co. v Lucas, 135 AD2d 778). Concur — Sullivan, J. P., Ellerin, Ross, Nardelli and Williams, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

227 A.D.2d 202, 642 N.Y.S.2d 519, 1996 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4986, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/chemical-mortgage-co-v-collier-nyappdiv-1996.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack