Dime Savings Bank v. Ron

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Dime Savings Bank v. Ron

208 A.D.2d 888, 617 N.Y.S.2d 901, 1994 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 10680

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

DecidedOctober 31, 1994

StatusPublished

This text of 208 A.D.2d 888 (Dime Savings Bank v. Ron) 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. Ron, 208 A.D.2d 888, 617 N.Y.S.2d 901, 1994 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 10680 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1994).

Pincite

Opinion

In an action to foreclose a mortgage, the defendant appeals from an order and judgment (one paper) of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Lane, J.), dated May 13, 1993, which, upon granting the plaintiff’s motion for renewal, awarded the plaintiff a deficiency judgment pursuant to RPAPL 1371 in the principal sum of $104,765.92, plus interest, costs, and disbursements.

Ordered that the order and judgment is affirmed, with costs.

Since the plaintiff’s original motion for a deficiency judgment pursuant to RPAPL 1371 was properly and timely made, we reject the defendant’s contention that the instant application is untimely pursuant to RPAPL 1371 (2). The plaintiff’s original motion was denied because the plaintiff was unable to obtain a full appraisal of the subject premises. Specifically, the defendant’s tenant would not permit access to the premises, thus necessitating the plaintiff’s subsequent motions for renewal with the proper proof. Under these circumstances we cannot find that the instant motion for renewal was untimely (cf., Voss v Multifilm Corp., 112 AD2d 216; Mortgagee Affiliates Corp. v Jerder Realty Servs., 62 AD2d 591). Thompson, J. P., Miller, O’Brien, Santucci and Joy, 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 appeals from an order and judgment (one paper) of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Lane, J.), dated May 13, 1993, which, upon granting the plaintiff’s motion for renewal, awarded the plaintiff a deficiency judgment pursuant to RPAPL 1371 in the principal sum of $104,765.92, plus interest, costs, and disbursements.

Ordered that the order and judgment is affirmed, with costs.

Since the plaintiff’s original motion for a deficiency judgment pursuant to RPAPL 1371 was properly and timely made, we reject the defendant’s contention that the instant application is untimely pursuant to RPAPL 1371 (2). The plaintiff’s original motion was denied because the plaintiff was unable to obtain a full appraisal of the subject premises. Specifically, the defendant’s tenant would not permit access to the premises, thus necessitating the plaintiff’s subsequent motions for renewal with the proper proof. Under these circumstances we cannot find that the instant motion for renewal was untimely (cf., Voss v Multifilm Corp., 112 AD2d 216; Mortgagee Affiliates Corp. v Jerder Realty Servs., 62 AD2d 591). Thompson, J. P., Miller, O’Brien, Santucci and Joy, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

208 A.D.2d 888, 617 N.Y.S.2d 901, 1994 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 10680, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/dime-savings-bank-v-ron-nyappdiv-1994.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack