Esic Capital, Inc. v. Farrell

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Esic Capital, Inc. v. Farrell

113 A.D.2d 917, 493 N.Y.S.2d 764, 1985 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 52547

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

DecidedSeptember 30, 1985

StatusPublished

This text of 113 A.D.2d 917 (Esic Capital, Inc. v. Farrell) 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

Esic Capital, Inc. v. Farrell, 113 A.D.2d 917, 493 N.Y.S.2d 764, 1985 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 52547 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1985).

Pincite

Opinion

In an action to foreclose a second mortgage, defendants James Thomas Farrell, Elizabeth Ann Farrell and F. & J. Industries, Inc., appeal (1) as limited by their brief, from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Nassau County (Burke, J.), dated June 20, 1984, as denied their motion to vacate a judgment of foreclosure entered upon their default in answering, and (2) from an order of the same court (McGinity, J.), dated October 25, 1984, as denied their renewed motion to vacate the referee’s report and the judgment of foreclosure based thereupon.

Order dated June 20, 1984 affirmed insofar as appealed from, and order dated October 25, 1984 affirmed.

Respondent is awarded one bill of costs.

Special Term properly exercised its discretion in denying appellants’ motion and renewed motion to vacate the judgment of foreclosure and the referee’s report entered upon their default (see, Gutbrodt v Gutbrodt, 64 AD2d 991; State Bank v Guiseppi Estates, 44 AD2d 878). Mangano, J. P., Rubin, Lawrence and Fiber, JJ., concur.

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

In an action to foreclose a second mortgage, defendants James Thomas Farrell, Elizabeth Ann Farrell and F. & J. Industries, Inc., appeal (1) as limited by their brief, from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Nassau County (Burke, J.), dated June 20, 1984, as denied their motion to vacate a judgment of foreclosure entered upon their default in answering, and (2) from an order of the same court (McGinity, J.), dated October 25, 1984, as denied their renewed motion to vacate the referee’s report and the judgment of foreclosure based thereupon.

Order dated June 20, 1984 affirmed insofar as appealed from, and order dated October 25, 1984 affirmed.

Respondent is awarded one bill of costs.

Special Term properly exercised its discretion in denying appellants’ motion and renewed motion to vacate the judgment of foreclosure and the referee’s report entered upon their default (see, Gutbrodt v Gutbrodt, 64 AD2d 991; State Bank v Guiseppi Estates, 44 AD2d 878). Mangano, J. P., Rubin, Lawrence and Fiber, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

113 A.D.2d 917, 493 N.Y.S.2d 764, 1985 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 52547, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/esic-capital-inc-v-farrell-nyappdiv-1985.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack