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

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

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).

287 A.D.2d 533 (Citizens Savings Bank v. Milo Equities, Ltd.) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Aetna Life Insurance v. Avalon Orchards, Inc.
118 A.D.2d 297 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1986)
Trustco Bank, National Ass'n v. Sack
270 A.D.2d 252 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2000)