Long Island Savings Bank of Centereach, F.S.B. v. Denkensohn

222 A.D.2d 659, 635 N.Y.S.2d 683, 1995 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 13889
CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York
DecidedDecember 29, 1995
StatusPublished
Cited by10 cases

This text of 222 A.D.2d 659 (Long Island Savings Bank of Centereach, F.S.B. v. Denkensohn) 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
Long Island Savings Bank of Centereach, F.S.B. v. Denkensohn, 222 A.D.2d 659, 635 N.Y.S.2d 683, 1995 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 13889 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1995).

Opinion

—In an action to foreclose a mortgage, the defendants Jerald Denkensohn and Carol Denkensohn appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Lerner, J.), dated August 25, 1993, which granted the plaintiff’s motion, inter alia, for summary judgment against them.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

The appellants contend that the plaintiff was required to send a notice of acceleration of mortgage debt as a condition precedent to requiring immediate payment of the entire amount of debt then remaining under the note. However, a review of the mortgage reveals that its terms unambiguously provided that upon the appellants’ default in payment, the plaintiff was entitled to accelerate the entire remaining unpaid mortgage debt "without making any further demand for payment”.

[660]*660In addition, there is no merit to the appellants’ contention that the complaint did not adequately quantify the amount due under the mortgage. In any event "[a] dispute as to the exact amount owed by the mortgagor to the mortgagee may be resolved after a reference pursuant to RPAPL 1321, and the existence of such a dispute does not preclude the issuance of summary judgment directing the sale of the mortgaged property” (Crest/ Good Mfg. Co. v Baumann, 160 AD2d 831, 832).

The appellants’ remaining contention is without merit. Balletta, J. P., O’Brien, Santucci and Florio, JJ., concur.

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

Related

Emigrant Bank v. Cohen
164 N.Y.S.3d 863 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2022)
Bank of Am., N.A. v. Terry
2019 NY Slip Op 7940 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2019)
Aurora Loan Servs., LLC v. Tobing
2019 NY Slip Op 3751 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2019)
Fannie Mae v. 133 Mgt., LLC
126 A.D.3d 670 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2015)
Orchard Hotel, LLC v. D.A.B. Group, LLC
106 A.D.3d 628 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2013)
Shufelt v. Bulfamante
92 A.D.3d 936 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2012)
Ometz Realty Corp. v. Edwards
244 A.D.2d 468 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1997)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
222 A.D.2d 659, 635 N.Y.S.2d 683, 1995 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 13889, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/long-island-savings-bank-of-centereach-fsb-v-denkensohn-nyappdiv-1995.