Colombi v. RWL Construction Corp.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Colombi v. RWL Construction Corp.

278 A.D.2d 191, 716 N.Y.S.2d 903, 2000 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 12513

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

DecidedDecember 4, 2000

StatusPublished

Cited by4 cases

This text of 278 A.D.2d 191 (Colombi v. RWL Construction Corp.) 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

Colombi v. RWL Construction Corp., 278 A.D.2d 191, 716 N.Y.S.2d 903, 2000 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 12513 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2000).

Pincite

Opinion

In an action to foreclose a mortgage, the defendant RWL Construction Corp. appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Suffolk County (Gerard, J.), dated April 12, 2000, which denied its motion to set aside the foreclosure sale.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, without costs or disbursements.

The defendant RWL Construction Corp. (hereinafter RWL) was not entitled to notice of the foreclosure sale as it did not answer the complaint, appear in the foreclosure action, or demand notice of the sale (see, Polish Natl. Alliance v White Eagle Hall Co., 98 AD2d 400, 403). Moreover, RWL failed to demonstrate that the sale price of the foreclosed premises was inadequate (see, Polish Natl. Alliance v White Eagle Hall Co., supra, at 407-408). Accordingly, the Supreme Court providently exercised its discretion in denying the appellant’s motion to set aside the sale (see, CPLR 2003). Mangano, P. J., S. Miller, McGinity, Luciano and Smith, 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 defendant RWL Construction Corp. appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Suffolk County (Gerard, J.), dated April 12, 2000, which denied its motion to set aside the foreclosure sale.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, without costs or disbursements.

The defendant RWL Construction Corp. (hereinafter RWL) was not entitled to notice of the foreclosure sale as it did not answer the complaint, appear in the foreclosure action, or demand notice of the sale (see, Polish Natl. Alliance v White Eagle Hall Co., 98 AD2d 400, 403). Moreover, RWL failed to demonstrate that the sale price of the foreclosed premises was inadequate (see, Polish Natl. Alliance v White Eagle Hall Co., supra, at 407-408). Accordingly, the Supreme Court providently exercised its discretion in denying the appellant’s motion to set aside the sale (see, CPLR 2003). Mangano, P. J., S. Miller, McGinity, Luciano and Smith, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

278 A.D.2d 191, 716 N.Y.S.2d 903, 2000 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 12513, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/colombi-v-rwl-construction-corp-nyappdiv-2000.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack