Lipton v. Specter

96 A.D.2d 549, 465 N.Y.S.2d 59, 1983 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 19079
CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York
DecidedJuly 18, 1983
StatusPublished
Cited by11 cases

This text of 96 A.D.2d 549 (Lipton v. Specter) 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
Lipton v. Specter, 96 A.D.2d 549, 465 N.Y.S.2d 59, 1983 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 19079 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1983).

Opinion

— In an action to foreclose a second mortgage, defendants Kenneth and Sylvia Specter appeal from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Buschmann, J.), dated October 15, 1982, which, inter alia, foreclosed a second mortgage on certain premises and directed a public auction thereof subject to the prior mortgage. Judgment modified, on the law, by striking from the first decretal paragraph thereof the award of $3,200 in counsel fees to plaintiffs, by reducing the principal amount of the judgment by said sum from $41,103.15 to $37,903.15, and by adding thereto a provision denying counsel fees to the plaintiffs. As so modified, judgment affirmed, with costs to plaintiffs, and matter remitted to the Supreme Court, Queens County, for further proceedings consistent herewith. We find that the trial court improperly granted plaintiffs $3,200 in counsel fees. The mortgage provided for the award of counsel fees in actions other than to foreclose the mortgage. The promissory note evidencing the underlying obligation provided for counsel fees to be awarded “in case any instalment under this Note is not paid when due”. That provision in the note is not the equivalent of an obligation to pay reasonable counsel fees in an action to foreclose a mortgage (Jamaica Sav. Bank v Cohan, 38 AD2d 841). Thus, the award of counsel fees in the case at bar was improper. Plaintiffs alternatively request that we grant discretionary costs pursuant to CPLR 8303 (subd [a]). Expressing no view on the merits of this request, we remit the matter to the Supreme Court, Queens County, for consideration of the matter in its discretion upon proper motion by plaintiffs. We have examined appellant’s remaining contentions on appeal and find them to be without merit. Damiani, J. P., Mangano, O’Connor and Niehoff, JJ., concur.

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

Related

HSBC Bank USA v. McKenna
37 Misc. 3d 885 (New York Supreme Court, 2012)
Emigrant Mortgage Co. v. Karpinski
67 A.D.3d 958 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2009)
Preferred Group of Manhattan, Inc. v. Fabius Maximus, Inc.
51 A.D.3d 889 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2008)
ABF Capital Corp. v. Grove Properties Co.
23 Cal. Rptr. 3d 803 (California Court of Appeal, 2005)
Levine v. Infidelity, Inc.
2 A.D.3d 691 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2003)
Chiu v. Hoydal
248 A.D.2d 426 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1998)
Eight Tobey Road Corp. v. Markesteyn
198 A.D.2d 865 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1993)
Sibley Mortgage Corp. v. Sobotica
155 Misc. 2d 616 (New York Supreme Court, 1992)
Brenner v. Alroy
171 A.D.2d 589 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1991)
Vardy Holding Co. v. Metric Resales, Inc.
131 A.D.2d 564 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1987)
In Re Berry Estates, Inc.
47 B.R. 1004 (S.D. New York, 1985)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
96 A.D.2d 549, 465 N.Y.S.2d 59, 1983 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 19079, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/lipton-v-specter-nyappdiv-1983.