Hoffman v. Seniuk

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Hoffman v. Seniuk

88 A.D.2d 954, 451 N.Y.S.2d 191, 1982 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 17322

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

DecidedJune 14, 1982

StatusPublished

Cited by4 cases

This text of 88 A.D.2d 954 (Hoffman v. Seniuk) 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

Hoffman v. Seniuk, 88 A.D.2d 954, 451 N.Y.S.2d 191, 1982 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 17322 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1982).

Pincite

Opinion

— In a proceeding to vacate a Sheriff’s sale of real property, Benjamin Travitsky (sued as Milton Traunski) and Milton Berlin appeal from a resettled order of the Supreme Court, Nassau County (Murphy, J.), dated November 5, 1981, which granted the petition, upon certain conditions. Resettled order affirmed, with $50 costs and disbursements payable to petitioner. There is no merit to appellants’ contention that CPLR 5240 has no application once property is struck off to the highest bidder at an execution sale, even though the deed has not yet been delivered. Appellants misread Guardian Loan Co. v Early (47 NY2d 515, 517), in which the court held that the statute cannot provide relief “once the real property has been struck off and a deed delivered to a stranger to the underlying judgment” (emphasis supplied). Appellants err in arguing that the emphasized language is of little importance. The law of New York requires delivery of the deed to effectuate transfer of title (Manhattan Life Ins. Co. v Continental Ins. Cos., 33 NY2d 370; Matter ofGlenday, 58 AD2d 628). We also reject appellants’ further contention that, under the prevailing circumstances, it was an abuse of discretion to grant petitioner’s application. Gibbons, J. P., Weinstein, O’Con-nor and Boyers, JJ., concur.

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

— In a proceeding to vacate a Sheriff’s sale of real property, Benjamin Travitsky (sued as Milton Traunski) and Milton Berlin appeal from a resettled order of the Supreme Court, Nassau County (Murphy, J.), dated November 5, 1981, which granted the petition, upon certain conditions. Resettled order affirmed, with $50 costs and disbursements payable to petitioner. There is no merit to appellants’ contention that CPLR 5240 has no application once property is struck off to the highest bidder at an execution sale, even though the deed has not yet been delivered. Appellants misread Guardian Loan Co. v Early (47 NY2d 515, 517), in which the court held that the statute cannot provide relief “once the real property has been struck off and a deed delivered to a stranger to the underlying judgment” (emphasis supplied). Appellants err in arguing that the emphasized language is of little importance. The law of New York requires delivery of the deed to effectuate transfer of title (Manhattan Life Ins. Co. v Continental Ins. Cos., 33 NY2d 370; Matter ofGlenday, 58 AD2d 628). We also reject appellants’ further contention that, under the prevailing circumstances, it was an abuse of discretion to grant petitioner’s application. Gibbons, J. P., Weinstein, O’Con-nor and Boyers, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

88 A.D.2d 954, 451 N.Y.S.2d 191, 1982 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 17322, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/hoffman-v-seniuk-nyappdiv-1982.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack