Garden City Co. v. Erickson

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Garden City Co. v. Erickson

251 A.D.2d 262, 675 N.Y.S.2d 528, 1998 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 7794

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

DecidedJune 30, 1998

StatusPublished

This text of 251 A.D.2d 262 (Garden City Co. v. Erickson) 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

Garden City Co. v. Erickson, 251 A.D.2d 262, 675 N.Y.S.2d 528, 1998 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 7794 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1998).

Pincite

Opinion

—Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Richard Braun, J.), entered on or about January 7, 1998, enjoining defendant from commencing or continuing any foreclosure actions with respect to mortgaged properties in which judgment debtor Lawrence Kassover holds an interest, unanimously affirmed, with costs.

The record does not support defendant’s contention that the motion court’s determination was predicated either on a mistake of fact or the law of the case. To the contrary, we find that the relief granted was a reasonable disposition designed to preserve the status quo in circumstances where its denial might well have rendered any final judgment ineffectual (see, Walker & Zanger v Zanger, 245 AD2d 144; Board of Mgrs. v Lavy Corp., 233 AD2d 158, 161). We have considered defendant’s other contentions and find them to have been either improperly raised for the first time on appeal or without merit. Concur — Milonas, J. P., Rosenberger, Nardelli, Wallach and Rubin, JJ.

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

—Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Richard Braun, J.), entered on or about January 7, 1998, enjoining defendant from commencing or continuing any foreclosure actions with respect to mortgaged properties in which judgment debtor Lawrence Kassover holds an interest, unanimously affirmed, with costs.

The record does not support defendant’s contention that the motion court’s determination was predicated either on a mistake of fact or the law of the case. To the contrary, we find that the relief granted was a reasonable disposition designed to preserve the status quo in circumstances where its denial might well have rendered any final judgment ineffectual (see, Walker & Zanger v Zanger, 245 AD2d 144; Board of Mgrs. v Lavy Corp., 233 AD2d 158, 161). We have considered defendant’s other contentions and find them to have been either improperly raised for the first time on appeal or without merit. Concur — Milonas, J. P., Rosenberger, Nardelli, Wallach and Rubin, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

251 A.D.2d 262, 675 N.Y.S.2d 528, 1998 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 7794, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/garden-city-co-v-erickson-nyappdiv-1998.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack