Island Holding, LLC v. O'Brien

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Island Holding, LLC v. O'Brien

305 A.D.2d 463, 759 N.Y.S.2d 337

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

DecidedMay 12, 2003

StatusPublished

This text of 305 A.D.2d 463 (Island Holding, LLC v. O'Brien) 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

Island Holding, LLC v. O'Brien, 305 A.D.2d 463, 759 N.Y.S.2d 337 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2003).

Pincite

Opinion

—In an action to foreclose a mortgage, the defendants Alabert J. O’Brien, also known as Albert J. O’Brien and Douglas Alan O’Brien, as trustee FBO Denis J. O’Brien Family, appeal, as limited by their brief, from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Suffolk County (Underwood, J.), dated May 3, 2002, as denied their motion to strike a notice of claim to surplus money, dated September 10, 2001.

[464]*464Ordered that the order is affirmed insofar as appealed from, with costs.

Since the report of sale had not been confirmed, the subject notice of claim to surplus money, dated September 10, 2001, was timely (see RPAPL 1361 [1]). Contrary to the appellants’ contention, the claimant did not waive any and all claims to the surplus money. Ritter, J.P., Altman, Krausman and Crane, 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, the defendants Alabert J. O’Brien, also known as Albert J. O’Brien and Douglas Alan O’Brien, as trustee FBO Denis J. O’Brien Family, appeal, as limited by their brief, from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Suffolk County (Underwood, J.), dated May 3, 2002, as denied their motion to strike a notice of claim to surplus money, dated September 10, 2001.

[464]*464Ordered that the order is affirmed insofar as appealed from, with costs.

Since the report of sale had not been confirmed, the subject notice of claim to surplus money, dated September 10, 2001, was timely (see RPAPL 1361 [1]). Contrary to the appellants’ contention, the claimant did not waive any and all claims to the surplus money. Ritter, J.P., Altman, Krausman and Crane, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

305 A.D.2d 463, 759 N.Y.S.2d 337, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/island-holding-llc-v-obrien-nyappdiv-2003.