First Federal Savings & Loan Ass'n of Rochester v. Perez

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

First Federal Savings & Loan Ass'n of Rochester v. Perez

223 A.D.2d 666, 637 N.Y.S.2d 423, 1996 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 653

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

DecidedJanuary 29, 1996

StatusPublished

This text of 223 A.D.2d 666 (First Federal Savings & Loan Ass'n of Rochester v. Perez) 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

First Federal Savings & Loan Ass'n of Rochester v. Perez, 223 A.D.2d 666, 637 N.Y.S.2d 423, 1996 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 653 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1996).

Pincite

Opinion

In an action to foreclose a mortgage on real property, the defendant Stephen Minton appeals, as limited by his brief, from stated portions of an order of the Supreme Court, Suffolk County (Underwood, J.), dated August 31, 1994, which, inter alia, denied his motion to vacate the judgment of foreclosure and sale.

[667]*667Ordered that the order is affirmed insofar as appealed from, with costs.

The appellant was given an opportunity to redeem the property in question and failed to do so. At the time of the foreclosure sale, the appellant did not attempt to redeem the property, nor did he secure a temporary stay of the sale. Accordingly, the Referee properly conducted the sale (see, Finance Inv. Co. [Bermuda] v Gossweiler, 145 AD2d 462).

The appellant’s remaining contentions are without merit. Bracken, J. P., O’Brien, Ritter, Friedmann and Goldstein, 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 on real property, the defendant Stephen Minton appeals, as limited by his brief, from stated portions of an order of the Supreme Court, Suffolk County (Underwood, J.), dated August 31, 1994, which, inter alia, denied his motion to vacate the judgment of foreclosure and sale.

[667]*667Ordered that the order is affirmed insofar as appealed from, with costs.

The appellant was given an opportunity to redeem the property in question and failed to do so. At the time of the foreclosure sale, the appellant did not attempt to redeem the property, nor did he secure a temporary stay of the sale. Accordingly, the Referee properly conducted the sale (see, Finance Inv. Co. [Bermuda] v Gossweiler, 145 AD2d 462).

The appellant’s remaining contentions are without merit. Bracken, J. P., O’Brien, Ritter, Friedmann and Goldstein, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

223 A.D.2d 666, 637 N.Y.S.2d 423, 1996 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 653, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/first-federal-savings-loan-assn-of-rochester-v-perez-nyappdiv-1996.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack