Dime Savings Bank of New York v. Weinstein

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Dime Savings Bank of New York v. Weinstein

259 A.D.2d 400, 687 N.Y.S.2d 105, 1999 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 2801

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

DecidedMarch 23, 1999

StatusPublished

This text of 259 A.D.2d 400 (Dime Savings Bank of New York v. Weinstein) 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 v. Weinstein, 259 A.D.2d 400, 687 N.Y.S.2d 105, 1999 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 2801 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1999).

Pincite

Opinion

Order, Supreme Court, Bronx County (Bertram Katz, J.), entered January 6, 1998, which, inter alia, granted defendant Burton and Carolyn Weinsteins’ motion for summary judgment on their cross claim against defendant-appellant Callahans, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

The issues raised in connection with the Weinsteins’ cross claim to recover amounts paid by them in satisfaction of a deficiency judgment are distinct from those raised by plaintiff bank in its action to foreclose the mortgage affecting the premises conveyed by the Weinsteins to the Callahans, and were not addressed, much less disposed of, in the earlier order granting plaintiff bank’s motion for summary judgment. Thus, the issues pertinent to the cross claim were properly addressed by the motion court. Thereupon, such issues were correctly decided. The terms of the assumption clause in the Condominium Deed, the execution of which was not contested, establish the Callahans’ liability pursuant to General Obligations Law § 5-705, as a matter of law (see, 1 Bergman, New York Mortgage Foreclosures § 12.04 [2]; Schley v Fryer, 100 NY 71). Concur — Rosenberger, J. P., Nardelli, Williams and Wallach, JJ.

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

Order, Supreme Court, Bronx County (Bertram Katz, J.), entered January 6, 1998, which, inter alia, granted defendant Burton and Carolyn Weinsteins’ motion for summary judgment on their cross claim against defendant-appellant Callahans, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

The issues raised in connection with the Weinsteins’ cross claim to recover amounts paid by them in satisfaction of a deficiency judgment are distinct from those raised by plaintiff bank in its action to foreclose the mortgage affecting the premises conveyed by the Weinsteins to the Callahans, and were not addressed, much less disposed of, in the earlier order granting plaintiff bank’s motion for summary judgment. Thus, the issues pertinent to the cross claim were properly addressed by the motion court. Thereupon, such issues were correctly decided. The terms of the assumption clause in the Condominium Deed, the execution of which was not contested, establish the Callahans’ liability pursuant to General Obligations Law § 5-705, as a matter of law (see, 1 Bergman, New York Mortgage Foreclosures § 12.04 [2]; Schley v Fryer, 100 NY 71). Concur — Rosenberger, J. P., Nardelli, Williams and Wallach, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

259 A.D.2d 400, 687 N.Y.S.2d 105, 1999 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 2801, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/dime-savings-bank-of-new-york-v-weinstein-nyappdiv-1999.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack