Malgeo Construction Corp. v. Oehlrich

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Malgeo Construction Corp. v. Oehlrich

292 A.D.2d 429, 738 N.Y.S.2d 897, 2002 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 2510

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

DecidedMarch 11, 2002

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 292 A.D.2d 429 (Malgeo Construction Corp. v. Oehlrich) 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

Malgeo Construction Corp. v. Oehlrich, 292 A.D.2d 429, 738 N.Y.S.2d 897, 2002 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 2510 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2002).

Pincite

Opinion

In an action pursuant to RPAPL article 15 to compel the determination of a claim to real property, the defendant appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Orange County (Owen, J.), dated August 2, 2000, which granted the plaintiffs motion for summary judgment declaring that the plaintiff holds title to certain real property and denied his cross motion for summary judgment on the counterclaim.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs, and the mat[430]*430ter is remitted to the Supreme Court, Orange County, for entry of a judgment declaring that the plaintiff holds title to certain real property.

“A judgment of foreclosure and sale entered against a defendant is final as to all questions at issue between the parties, and concludes all matters of defense which were or might have been litigated in the foreclosure action” (Long Is. Sav. Bank v Mihalios, 269 AD2d 502, 503; see, Beube v English, 206 AD2d 339; Valdez v Garcia, 151 AD2d 471). Accordingly, in this post-foreclosure action, the defendant’s contentions are without merit (see, Long Is. Sav. Bank v Mihalios, supra; Valdez v Garcia, supra). S. Miller, J.P., Schmidt, Crane and Cozier, JJ., concur.

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

In an action pursuant to RPAPL article 15 to compel the determination of a claim to real property, the defendant appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Orange County (Owen, J.), dated August 2, 2000, which granted the plaintiffs motion for summary judgment declaring that the plaintiff holds title to certain real property and denied his cross motion for summary judgment on the counterclaim.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs, and the mat[430]*430ter is remitted to the Supreme Court, Orange County, for entry of a judgment declaring that the plaintiff holds title to certain real property.

“A judgment of foreclosure and sale entered against a defendant is final as to all questions at issue between the parties, and concludes all matters of defense which were or might have been litigated in the foreclosure action” (Long Is. Sav. Bank v Mihalios, 269 AD2d 502, 503; see, Beube v English, 206 AD2d 339; Valdez v Garcia, 151 AD2d 471). Accordingly, in this post-foreclosure action, the defendant’s contentions are without merit (see, Long Is. Sav. Bank v Mihalios, supra; Valdez v Garcia, supra). S. Miller, J.P., Schmidt, Crane and Cozier, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

292 A.D.2d 429, 738 N.Y.S.2d 897, 2002 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 2510, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/malgeo-construction-corp-v-oehlrich-nyappdiv-2002.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack