Jeferne, Inc. v. Capanegro

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Jeferne, Inc. v. Capanegro

89 A.D.2d 577, 452 N.Y.S.2d 236, 1982 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 17644

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

DecidedJuly 12, 1982

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 89 A.D.2d 577 (Jeferne, Inc. v. Capanegro) 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

Jeferne, Inc. v. Capanegro, 89 A.D.2d 577, 452 N.Y.S.2d 236, 1982 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 17644 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1982).

Pincite

Opinion

In an action to foreclose a mortgage, defendant Sun Haven Motel Corp. appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Suffolk County (Velsor, J.), dated December 23, 1981, which denied its motion for summary judgment. Order reversed, on the law, with $50 costs and disbursements, motion granted and complaint dismissed as against defendant Sun Haven Motel Corp. When looking at the facts in a light most favorable to plaintiff, it is clear that no overt act was taken, or even attempted, to notify appellant of plaintiff’s intention to exercise its right of acceleration. Without such an overt act, appellant’s tender of payment for the amount in default was improperly refused (see Sherwood v Greene, 41 AD2d 881; 446 West 44th St. v Riverland Holding Corp., 267 App Div 135; Seligman v Burg, 233 App Div 221). Titone, J. P., Gibbons, Gulotta and Thompson, 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, defendant Sun Haven Motel Corp. appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Suffolk County (Velsor, J.), dated December 23, 1981, which denied its motion for summary judgment. Order reversed, on the law, with $50 costs and disbursements, motion granted and complaint dismissed as against defendant Sun Haven Motel Corp. When looking at the facts in a light most favorable to plaintiff, it is clear that no overt act was taken, or even attempted, to notify appellant of plaintiff’s intention to exercise its right of acceleration. Without such an overt act, appellant’s tender of payment for the amount in default was improperly refused (see Sherwood v Greene, 41 AD2d 881; 446 West 44th St. v Riverland Holding Corp., 267 App Div 135; Seligman v Burg, 233 App Div 221). Titone, J. P., Gibbons, Gulotta and Thompson, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

89 A.D.2d 577, 452 N.Y.S.2d 236, 1982 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 17644, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/jeferne-inc-v-capanegro-nyappdiv-1982.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack