Gill Companies v. Gutierrez

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Gill Companies v. Gutierrez

116 A.D.2d 696, 498 N.Y.S.2d 15, 1986 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 51552

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

DecidedJanuary 27, 1986

StatusPublished

This text of 116 A.D.2d 696 (Gill Companies v. Gutierrez) 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

Gill Companies v. Gutierrez, 116 A.D.2d 696, 498 N.Y.S.2d 15, 1986 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 51552 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1986).

Pincite

Opinion

In an action to foreclose a mortgage on real property, defendants Noe and Susanna Gutierrez appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Kings [697]*697County (Meyerson, J.), entered July 9, 1984, which, inter alia, denied their motion to vacate a judgment of foreclosure entered upon their default and granted plaintiffs motion for a writ of assistance to gain entry to the subject premises.

Order affirmed, with costs.

We agree with Special Term’s finding that appellants were properly served pursuant to CPLR 308 (2). Appellants’ attack upon the veracity of plaintiff’s process server is without merit in view of the hearing court’s finding that he was credible, which may be inferred from its decision and which must be considered controlling on appeal (see, Altman v Wallach, 104 AD2d 391, 392). The other issues presented on appeal are without merit. Gibbons, J. P., Bracken, Rubin and Kunzeman, 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, defendants Noe and Susanna Gutierrez appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Kings [697]*697County (Meyerson, J.), entered July 9, 1984, which, inter alia, denied their motion to vacate a judgment of foreclosure entered upon their default and granted plaintiffs motion for a writ of assistance to gain entry to the subject premises.

Order affirmed, with costs.

We agree with Special Term’s finding that appellants were properly served pursuant to CPLR 308 (2). Appellants’ attack upon the veracity of plaintiff’s process server is without merit in view of the hearing court’s finding that he was credible, which may be inferred from its decision and which must be considered controlling on appeal (see, Altman v Wallach, 104 AD2d 391, 392). The other issues presented on appeal are without merit. Gibbons, J. P., Bracken, Rubin and Kunzeman, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

116 A.D.2d 696, 498 N.Y.S.2d 15, 1986 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 51552, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/gill-companies-v-gutierrez-nyappdiv-1986.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack