Mack Financial Corp. v. Knoud

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Mack Financial Corp. v. Knoud

98 A.D.2d 713, 469 N.Y.S.2d 116, 1983 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 21016

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

DecidedDecember 5, 1983

StatusPublished

Cited by14 cases

This text of 98 A.D.2d 713 (Mack Financial Corp. v. Knoud) 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

Mack Financial Corp. v. Knoud, 98 A.D.2d 713, 469 N.Y.S.2d 116, 1983 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 21016 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1983).

Pincite

Opinion

— In an action for a deficiency judgment, defendant appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Suffolk County (Rohl, J.), dated December 20,1982, which granted plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment in lieu of a complaint (CPLR 3213) and set the matter down for trial on the issue of damages. Order reversed, on the law, with costs, and motion denied. A secured party seeking a deficiency judgment from the debtor after sale of the collateral bears the [714]*714burden of showing that the sale was made in a “commercially reasonable” manner (see Uniform Commercial Code, § 9-504; Central Budget Corp. v Garrett, 48 AD2d 825). Here, the moving papers fail to set forth any of the facts and circumstances surrounding the sale, and have therefore failed to satisfy a prerequisite to obtaining a deficiency judgment (see Central Budget Corp. v Garrett, supra). Hence, summary judgment was improvidently granted. Lazer, J. P., Mangano, Bracken and Niehoff, JJ., concur.

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

— In an action for a deficiency judgment, defendant appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Suffolk County (Rohl, J.), dated December 20,1982, which granted plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment in lieu of a complaint (CPLR 3213) and set the matter down for trial on the issue of damages. Order reversed, on the law, with costs, and motion denied. A secured party seeking a deficiency judgment from the debtor after sale of the collateral bears the [714]*714burden of showing that the sale was made in a “commercially reasonable” manner (see Uniform Commercial Code, § 9-504; Central Budget Corp. v Garrett, 48 AD2d 825). Here, the moving papers fail to set forth any of the facts and circumstances surrounding the sale, and have therefore failed to satisfy a prerequisite to obtaining a deficiency judgment (see Central Budget Corp. v Garrett, supra). Hence, summary judgment was improvidently granted. Lazer, J. P., Mangano, Bracken and Niehoff, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

98 A.D.2d 713, 469 N.Y.S.2d 116, 1983 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 21016, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/mack-financial-corp-v-knoud-nyappdiv-1983.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack