Jamaica Savings Bank v. Sutton

42 A.D.2d 856, 346 N.Y.S.2d 847, 1973 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3638
CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York
DecidedAugust 13, 1973
StatusPublished
Cited by10 cases

This text of 42 A.D.2d 856 (Jamaica Savings Bank v. Sutton) 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
Jamaica Savings Bank v. Sutton, 42 A.D.2d 856, 346 N.Y.S.2d 847, 1973 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3638 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1973).

Opinion

In an action to foreclose a mortgage on [857]*857real property, plaintiff appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County, dated February 6, 1973, which granted respondents’ motion to vacate their default in answering the complaint and granted them leave to serve an answer. Order reversed, on the law, with $20 costs and disbursements, and motion denied. In our opinion, it was an improvident exercise of discretion to grant respondents’ motion since the record in this ease discloses that no tender by them of the amount due and payable on the mortgage was ever made. Bather, they made only an offer of payment, short of a valid tender, and this was insufficient to discharge their obligation (15 Williston, Contracts [3d ed.], § 1808 et seq.). A valid tender requires not only readiness and ability to perform, but actual production of the thing to be delivered, in this case, the mortgage payment arrearages (Eddy v. Davis, 116 1ST. Y. 247; New York Utility Co. v. Williamsburg Steam Laundry Go., 187 App. Div. 110). In addition, respondents have failed to set forth a reasonable excuse for their default in serving an answer to the complaint (Treo Enterprises v. O’Neill, 36 A D 2d 541; Bridger V. Donaldson, 34 A D 2d 628; Wall v. Bennett, 33 A D 2d 827). The record reveals a protracted history of delay by respondents in making their mortgage payments. Under these circumstances, the motion must be denied. Munder, Acting P. J., Shapiro, Gulotta and Benjamin, JJ., concur.

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

Related

Bison Capital Corp. v. ATP Oil & Gas Corp.
884 F. Supp. 2d 57 (S.D. New York, 2012)
Lancer Insurance v. Sunrise Removal, Inc.
78 A.D.3d 1128 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2010)
Doviak v. Lowe's Home Centers, Inc.
63 A.D.3d 1348 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2009)
MacKenzie v. MacKenzie
17 Misc. 3d 346 (New York Supreme Court, 2007)
In re Jefferson County
295 A.D.2d 934 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2002)
Farmingdale Realty Trust v. Real Properties MLP Ltd. Partnership
225 A.D.2d 656 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1996)
Dion Friedland v. Cap Juluca Partners I
221 A.D.2d 284 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1995)
Stanton v. RICH BAKER BERMAN & CO., PA
876 F. Supp. 1373 (D. New Jersey, 1995)
Bank of New York v. Midland Avenue Development
193 A.D.2d 641 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1993)
Rawcliffe v. Aguayo
108 Misc. 2d 1027 (New York Supreme Court, 1981)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
42 A.D.2d 856, 346 N.Y.S.2d 847, 1973 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3638, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/jamaica-savings-bank-v-sutton-nyappdiv-1973.