Dime Savings Bank v. Folk

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Dime Savings Bank v. Folk

58 A.D.2d 801, 396 N.Y.S.2d 249, 1977 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 12963

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

DecidedJuly 5, 1977

StatusPublished

This text of 58 A.D.2d 801 (Dime Savings Bank v. Folk) 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 v. Folk, 58 A.D.2d 801, 396 N.Y.S.2d 249, 1977 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 12963 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1977).

Pincite

Opinion

In a mortgage foreclosure action, defendant Frank Folk appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Queens County, dated November 1, 1976, which, inter alia, denied his motion to vacate the judgment of foreclosure and sale entered upon his default. Order affirmed, with $50 costs and disbursements. Appellant has failed to show that plaintiff did not comply with FHA regulations. Rather, the evidence indicates that for five months prior to bringing this action plaintiff diligently tried to contact appellant and work out some solution. In addition, plaintiff alleged, in an affidavit in opposition to the instant motion, that appellant’s attorney had spoken to its agent prior to the commencement of this action and had stated that appellant had no objection to the foreclosure. Appellant has not disputed this allegation. Latham, J. P., Rabin, Titone and O’Connor, JJ., concur.

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

In a mortgage foreclosure action, defendant Frank Folk appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Queens County, dated November 1, 1976, which, inter alia, denied his motion to vacate the judgment of foreclosure and sale entered upon his default. Order affirmed, with $50 costs and disbursements. Appellant has failed to show that plaintiff did not comply with FHA regulations. Rather, the evidence indicates that for five months prior to bringing this action plaintiff diligently tried to contact appellant and work out some solution. In addition, plaintiff alleged, in an affidavit in opposition to the instant motion, that appellant’s attorney had spoken to its agent prior to the commencement of this action and had stated that appellant had no objection to the foreclosure. Appellant has not disputed this allegation. Latham, J. P., Rabin, Titone and O’Connor, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

58 A.D.2d 801, 396 N.Y.S.2d 249, 1977 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 12963, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/dime-savings-bank-v-folk-nyappdiv-1977.