Lemma v. Williams

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Lemma v. Williams

65 A.D.2d 568, 409 N.Y.S.2d 511, 1978 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 13216

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

DecidedOctober 10, 1978

StatusPublished

This text of 65 A.D.2d 568 (Lemma v. Williams) 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

Lemma v. Williams, 65 A.D.2d 568, 409 N.Y.S.2d 511, 1978 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 13216 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1978).

Pincite

Opinion

In an action to foreclose a mortgage, the appeal is from an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County, dated June 22, 1978, which denied the appellant’s application (1) to vacate a default judgment and (2) for leave to intervene and defend the foreclosure action. Order reversed, on the law, without costs or disbursements, and appellant’s motion is granted. In an unusual case of this nature, where equity would not be served by a strict construction of the statute (see Not-For-Profit Corporation Law, § 623, subd [a]; § 720) the appellant should be given the right to intervene (see CPLR 1012, subd [a]) and present evidence in support of his allegations that a fraudulent scheme is being carried out by the plaintiff and others. Therefore, the default judgment should be vacated and the appellant held to have standing to defend the foreclosure action. Hopkins, J. P., Latham, Gulotta and O’Connor, 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 appeal is from an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County, dated June 22, 1978, which denied the appellant’s application (1) to vacate a default judgment and (2) for leave to intervene and defend the foreclosure action. Order reversed, on the law, without costs or disbursements, and appellant’s motion is granted. In an unusual case of this nature, where equity would not be served by a strict construction of the statute (see Not-For-Profit Corporation Law, § 623, subd [a]; § 720) the appellant should be given the right to intervene (see CPLR 1012, subd [a]) and present evidence in support of his allegations that a fraudulent scheme is being carried out by the plaintiff and others. Therefore, the default judgment should be vacated and the appellant held to have standing to defend the foreclosure action. Hopkins, J. P., Latham, Gulotta and O’Connor, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

65 A.D.2d 568, 409 N.Y.S.2d 511, 1978 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 13216, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/lemma-v-williams-nyappdiv-1978.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack