Citizens Savings Bank v. Milo Equities, Ltd.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Citizens Savings Bank v. Milo Equities, Ltd.

287 A.D.2d 533, 731 N.Y.S.2d 642, 2001 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 9581

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

DecidedOctober 15, 2001

StatusPublished

This text of 287 A.D.2d 533 (Citizens Savings Bank v. Milo Equities, Ltd.) 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

Citizens Savings Bank v. Milo Equities, Ltd., 287 A.D.2d 533, 731 N.Y.S.2d 642, 2001 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 9581 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2001).

Pincite

Opinion

—In an action to foreclose a mortgage, the defendants Leonard Horwitz and Marjorie Horwitz appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Dutchess County (Beisner, J.), dated May 16, 2000, which granted the plaintiff’s motion for a deficiency judgment.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

We agree with the Supreme Court that the plaintiff was entitled to a deficiency judgment (see, RPAPL 1371). The equitable considerations raised by the appellants do not warrant a modification of the deficiency judgment (see, Trustco Bank, Natl. Assn. v Sack, 270 AD2d 252; cf., Aetna Life Ins. Co. v Avalon Orchards, 118 AD2d 297). O’Brien, J. P., Friedmann, Smith and Cozier, 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, the defendants Leonard Horwitz and Marjorie Horwitz appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Dutchess County (Beisner, J.), dated May 16, 2000, which granted the plaintiff’s motion for a deficiency judgment.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

We agree with the Supreme Court that the plaintiff was entitled to a deficiency judgment (see, RPAPL 1371). The equitable considerations raised by the appellants do not warrant a modification of the deficiency judgment (see, Trustco Bank, Natl. Assn. v Sack, 270 AD2d 252; cf., Aetna Life Ins. Co. v Avalon Orchards, 118 AD2d 297). O’Brien, J. P., Friedmann, Smith and Cozier, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

287 A.D.2d 533, 731 N.Y.S.2d 642, 2001 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 9581, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/citizens-savings-bank-v-milo-equities-ltd-nyappdiv-2001.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack