In re Barclays Bank

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

In re Barclays Bank

96 A.D.2d 594, 464 N.Y.S.2d 1016, 1983 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 19125

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

DecidedJuly 25, 1983

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 96 A.D.2d 594 (In re Barclays Bank) 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

In re Barclays Bank, 96 A.D.2d 594, 464 N.Y.S.2d 1016, 1983 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 19125 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1983).

Pincite

Opinion

— In a proceeding to cancel and expunge of record a mortgage satisfaction erroneously made and recorded, petitioner appeals from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Suffolk County (Gowan, J.), dated December 20, 1982, which denied the application. Judgment reversed, on the law, without costs or disbursements, application granted and mortgage satisfaction canceled and expunged. Petitioner’s application to cancel and expunge the mortgage satisfaction at issue was unopposed. It is uncontroverted that the satisfaction was recorded by mistake, and Special Term so found. The mistake should therefore be rectified (Lumber Exch. Bank v Miller, 18 Mise 127; Krause v Hullar, 135 Mise 837). Gibbons, J. P., Thompson, Gulotta and Boyers, JJ., concur.

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

— In a proceeding to cancel and expunge of record a mortgage satisfaction erroneously made and recorded, petitioner appeals from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Suffolk County (Gowan, J.), dated December 20, 1982, which denied the application. Judgment reversed, on the law, without costs or disbursements, application granted and mortgage satisfaction canceled and expunged. Petitioner’s application to cancel and expunge the mortgage satisfaction at issue was unopposed. It is uncontroverted that the satisfaction was recorded by mistake, and Special Term so found. The mistake should therefore be rectified (Lumber Exch. Bank v Miller, 18 Mise 127; Krause v Hullar, 135 Mise 837). Gibbons, J. P., Thompson, Gulotta and Boyers, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

96 A.D.2d 594, 464 N.Y.S.2d 1016, 1983 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 19125, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/in-re-barclays-bank-nyappdiv-1983.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack