Le Vine v. Flynn

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Le Vine v. Flynn

231 A.D.2d 555, 647 N.Y.S.2d 105, 1996 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 9251

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

DecidedSeptember 16, 1996

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 231 A.D.2d 555 (Le Vine v. Flynn) 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

Le Vine v. Flynn, 231 A.D.2d 555, 647 N.Y.S.2d 105, 1996 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 9251 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1996).

Pincite

Opinion

In an action to foreclose a mortgage, the defendants Sandra Flynn and Herbert Lindo appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Nassau County (Collins, J.), dated October 26, 1995, which, inter alia, granted the plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment and appointed a Referee to ascertain and compute the amount due.

[556]*556Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

The appellants specifically waived the defense of usury in a "stipulation and order”, "so ordered” by the court, which settled a prior action to foreclose the mortgage in issue here. Accordingly, the appellants were precluded from raising usury in the instant action (see, Central Funding Co. v Deglin, 67 AD2d 673, affd in part, appeal dismissed in part 48 NY2d 964; see also, Daniel v Daniel, 224 AD2d 573). The appellants’ remaining contentions are without merit. Bracken, J. P., Krausman, Goldstein and Luciano, 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 Sandra Flynn and Herbert Lindo appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Nassau County (Collins, J.), dated October 26, 1995, which, inter alia, granted the plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment and appointed a Referee to ascertain and compute the amount due.

[556]*556Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

The appellants specifically waived the defense of usury in a "stipulation and order”, "so ordered” by the court, which settled a prior action to foreclose the mortgage in issue here. Accordingly, the appellants were precluded from raising usury in the instant action (see, Central Funding Co. v Deglin, 67 AD2d 673, affd in part, appeal dismissed in part 48 NY2d 964; see also, Daniel v Daniel, 224 AD2d 573). The appellants’ remaining contentions are without merit. Bracken, J. P., Krausman, Goldstein and Luciano, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

231 A.D.2d 555, 647 N.Y.S.2d 105, 1996 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 9251, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/le-vine-v-flynn-nyappdiv-1996.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack