Duke v. Werbalowsky

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Duke v. Werbalowsky

115 A.D.2d 947, 497 N.Y.S.2d 524, 1985 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 55308

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

DecidedDecember 20, 1985

StatusPublished

This text of 115 A.D.2d 947 (Duke v. Werbalowsky) 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

Duke v. Werbalowsky, 115 A.D.2d 947, 497 N.Y.S.2d 524, 1985 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 55308 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1985).

Pincite

Opinion

Order unanimously modified, on the law, and, as modified, affirmed, without costs, in accordance with the following memorandum: We modify by deleting so much of the order directing that immediate possession of the subject premises be delivered to plaintiff and that defendant Samuels and any other persons residing therein vacate the subject premises within 48 hours. As a vendee under a land contract in foreclosure, defendant is entitled to possession until foreclosure of her equitable title (see, Bean v Walker, 95 AD2d 70). We have examined the contentions raised on appeal and find them to be without merit. (Appeal from order of Supreme Court, Onondaga [948]*948County, Lynch, J.—summary judgment.) Present—Dillon, P. J., Callahan, Denman, Pine and Schnepp, JJ.

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

Order unanimously modified, on the law, and, as modified, affirmed, without costs, in accordance with the following memorandum: We modify by deleting so much of the order directing that immediate possession of the subject premises be delivered to plaintiff and that defendant Samuels and any other persons residing therein vacate the subject premises within 48 hours. As a vendee under a land contract in foreclosure, defendant is entitled to possession until foreclosure of her equitable title (see, Bean v Walker, 95 AD2d 70). We have examined the contentions raised on appeal and find them to be without merit. (Appeal from order of Supreme Court, Onondaga [948]*948County, Lynch, J.—summary judgment.) Present—Dillon, P. J., Callahan, Denman, Pine and Schnepp, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

115 A.D.2d 947, 497 N.Y.S.2d 524, 1985 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 55308, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/duke-v-werbalowsky-nyappdiv-1985.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack