Mallick v. Sakaria

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Mallick v. Sakaria

119 A.D.2d 733, 501 N.Y.S.2d 145, 1986 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 55659

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

DecidedApril 21, 1986

StatusPublished

This text of 119 A.D.2d 733 (Mallick v. Sakaria) 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

Mallick v. Sakaria, 119 A.D.2d 733, 501 N.Y.S.2d 145, 1986 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 55659 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1986).

Pincite

Opinion

— In a mortgage foreclosure action, the defendants Rumesh M. Sakaria and Manjula R. Sakaria appeal from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Hyman, J.), dated March 6, 1985, which, after a nonjury trial, inter alia, declared that the total amount of a mortgage debt due to the plaintiff was $142,616.30, and directed that the subject premises be sold at public auction.

Judgment affirmed, without costs or disbursements.

Contrary to the appellants’ argument, the record amply supports the trial court’s determination that they defaulted in making payments on the mortgage note. Furthermore, the trial court did not err in granting the plaintiff mortgagee a reasonable fee for managing the mortgaged property, in view [734]*734of the appellants’ express agreement with regard thereto (see, Gordon v Krellman, 207 App Div 773; 38 NY Jur, Mortgages & Deeds of Trust, § 123).

We have examined the appellant’s remaining arguments and find them to be without merit. Mollen, P. J., Mangano, Gibbons and Bracken, JJ., concur.

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

— In a mortgage foreclosure action, the defendants Rumesh M. Sakaria and Manjula R. Sakaria appeal from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Hyman, J.), dated March 6, 1985, which, after a nonjury trial, inter alia, declared that the total amount of a mortgage debt due to the plaintiff was $142,616.30, and directed that the subject premises be sold at public auction.

Judgment affirmed, without costs or disbursements.

Contrary to the appellants’ argument, the record amply supports the trial court’s determination that they defaulted in making payments on the mortgage note. Furthermore, the trial court did not err in granting the plaintiff mortgagee a reasonable fee for managing the mortgaged property, in view [734]*734of the appellants’ express agreement with regard thereto (see, Gordon v Krellman, 207 App Div 773; 38 NY Jur, Mortgages & Deeds of Trust, § 123).

We have examined the appellant’s remaining arguments and find them to be without merit. Mollen, P. J., Mangano, Gibbons and Bracken, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

119 A.D.2d 733, 501 N.Y.S.2d 145, 1986 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 55659, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/mallick-v-sakaria-nyappdiv-1986.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack