Dime Savings Bank of New York, FSB v. Higner

281 A.D.2d 895, 722 N.Y.S.2d 651, 2001 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 2679
CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York
DecidedMarch 21, 2001
DocketAppeal No. 2
StatusPublished
Cited by1 cases

This text of 281 A.D.2d 895 (Dime Savings Bank of New York, FSB v. Higner) 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
Dime Savings Bank of New York, FSB v. Higner, 281 A.D.2d 895, 722 N.Y.S.2d 651, 2001 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 2679 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2001).

Opinion

—Order unanimously reversed on the law without costs, motion granted and default judgment and foreclosure sale vacated. Memorandum: County Court erred in denying the motion of David N. Higner (defendant) to vacate the default judgment of foreclosure and the foreclosure sale of property located at 181 Glenhaven Road in the Town of Amherst. After being served with the summons and complaint in the foreclosure action, defendant attempted to reach his attorney by telephone. When he was unable to do so, he wrote a letter to plaintiff’s attorney, denying the validity of plaintiff’s claim and setting forth the defense that he had made payments for which no accounting had been provided. Defendant further stated in the letter that he has an attorney in this ac[896]*896tion, and he instructed plaintiffs attorney to “direct all responses to his office.” In our view, defendant’s letter, which denied the allegations in the complaint and set forth a defense to the action, should have been deemed an answer (see, Cook v Freight Force, 139 Misc 2d 459, 460; Bambergers Div. v Smith, 91 Misc 2d 856, 858; cf., Leone v Johnson, 99 AD2d 567, 568). At the very least, the letter should have been deemed a notice of appearance, requiring notice to defendant of the application to seek a default judgment and the foreclosure sale (see, Leader Fed. Bank for Sav. v Van Tienhoven, 262 AD2d 1078). (Appeal from Order of Erie County Court, DiTullio, J. — Vacate Judgment.) Present — Pigott, Jr., P. J., Green, Pine, Hurlbutt and Burns, JJ.

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

Related

Paulus v. Christopher Vacirca, Inc.
128 A.D.3d 116 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2015)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
281 A.D.2d 895, 722 N.Y.S.2d 651, 2001 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 2679, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/dime-savings-bank-of-new-york-fsb-v-higner-nyappdiv-2001.