Dime Savings Bank v. Ogle

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Dime Savings Bank v. Ogle

202 A.D.2d 336, 610 N.Y.S.2d 773

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

DecidedMarch 24, 1994

StatusPublished

This text of 202 A.D.2d 336 (Dime Savings Bank v. Ogle) 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. Ogle, 202 A.D.2d 336, 610 N.Y.S.2d 773 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1994).

Pincite

Opinion

—Order, Supreme Court, Kings County (James Shaw, J.), entered July 2, 1992, which denied defendant-appellant’s motion to vacate a judgment of foreclosure and sale, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

We agree with the IAS Court that appellant’s evidence does [337]*337not provide a defense to plaintiffs cause of action for foreclosure. Codefendant James Ogle’s testimony that he had been involved in sale-leasebacks with other people did not suggest plaintiffs involvement in these other transactions, but merely that plaintiff was just another of Ogle’s victims, and indeed such was the finding of the court in defendant Taylor’s fraud action against Ogle. Given the evidence that plaintiff too was a victim of Ogle’s fraud, it is pure speculation for appellant to argue that wrongdoing on plaintiffs part is indicated by the fact that plaintiff gave appellant’s check to Ogle. Concur— Wallach, J. P., Ross, Rubin, Nardelli and Williams, JJ.

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

—Order, Supreme Court, Kings County (James Shaw, J.), entered July 2, 1992, which denied defendant-appellant’s motion to vacate a judgment of foreclosure and sale, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

We agree with the IAS Court that appellant’s evidence does [337]*337not provide a defense to plaintiffs cause of action for foreclosure. Codefendant James Ogle’s testimony that he had been involved in sale-leasebacks with other people did not suggest plaintiffs involvement in these other transactions, but merely that plaintiff was just another of Ogle’s victims, and indeed such was the finding of the court in defendant Taylor’s fraud action against Ogle. Given the evidence that plaintiff too was a victim of Ogle’s fraud, it is pure speculation for appellant to argue that wrongdoing on plaintiffs part is indicated by the fact that plaintiff gave appellant’s check to Ogle. Concur— Wallach, J. P., Ross, Rubin, Nardelli and Williams, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

202 A.D.2d 336, 610 N.Y.S.2d 773, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/dime-savings-bank-v-ogle-nyappdiv-1994.