GIT Industries, Inc. v. Rose

94 A.D.2d 714, 462 N.Y.S.2d 245, 1983 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 18155
CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York
DecidedMay 9, 1983
StatusPublished
Cited by9 cases

This text of 94 A.D.2d 714 (GIT Industries, Inc. v. Rose) 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
GIT Industries, Inc. v. Rose, 94 A.D.2d 714, 462 N.Y.S.2d 245, 1983 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 18155 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1983).

Opinion

— In an action, inter alia, to recover damages for breach of an agreement to pay the deficiency between the proceeds of a foreclosure sale and a mortgage debt, defendant appeals from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Suffolk County (Geiler, J.), entered July 2, 1982, which, inter alia, is in favor of plaintiff in the principal sum of $466,124.01, after a nonjury trial. Judgment modified, on the law, by reducing the sum thereof to $463,624.01. As so modified, judgment affirmed, with costs, and the matter remitted to the Supreme Court, Suffolk County, for entry of an appropriate amended judgment. Following summary judgment awarded in favor of defendant, this court reinstated the complaint and held that a trial was necessary to determine, among other things, whether the repurchase [715]*715provisions of the agreement of September 12,1977 constituted an independent loan separate and distinct from the mortgage debt (GIT Inds. v Rose, 81 AD2d 656, app dsmd 54 NY2d 752). Based on the evidence introduced at trial, we now conclude that there was in fact an independent loan from plaintiff to defendant, with the mortgage debt pledged as security. Accordingly, plaintiff was not limited to moving for a deficiency judgment pursuant to RPAPL 1371, and was not barred from maintaining this separate action by RPAPL 1301. However, the trial court erred by awarding the sum of $2,500 to plaintiff for legal fees. The agreement of September 12, 1977 expressly limits the amount of legal fees recoverable by plaintiff to those incurred in connection with the foreclosure action brought pursuant thereto. Mollen, P. J., Gulotta, O’Connor and Rubin, JJ., concur.

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

Related

Recoll Management Corp. v. Quadrini
256 A.D.2d 871 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1998)
Bank Leumi Trust Co. v. Andrews
254 A.D.2d 445 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1998)
P. T. Bank Central Asia v. Wide Motion Corp.
233 A.D.2d 151 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1996)
Sirota v. Langtry
227 A.D.2d 955 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1996)
Bank Leumi Trust Co. v. Mari-Age Bridals, Inc.
215 A.D.2d 422 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1995)
Brenner v. Alroy
171 A.D.2d 589 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1991)
Rose v. Commissioner
1987 T.C. Memo. 19 (U.S. Tax Court, 1987)
TBS Enterprises Inc. v. Grobe
114 A.D.2d 445 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1985)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
94 A.D.2d 714, 462 N.Y.S.2d 245, 1983 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 18155, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/git-industries-inc-v-rose-nyappdiv-1983.