Mariash v. Bastianich

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Mariash v. Bastianich

88 A.D.2d 829

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

DecidedJune 8, 1982

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 88 A.D.2d 829 (Mariash v. Bastianich) 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

Mariash v. Bastianich, 88 A.D.2d 829 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1982).

Pincite

Opinions

— Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Tyler, J.), entered on or about February 10, 1982, which denied plaintiff-appellant’s motion for summary judgment in this mortgage foreclosure action, reversed, on the law, and motion granted, with costs. The mortgagee is entitled to enforce an acceleration clause in his contract in the absence of waiver, estoppel, bad faith, fraud, or oppressive or unconscionable conduct (Graf v Hope Bldg. Corp., 254 NY 1; Ferlazzo v Riley, 278 NY 289). Defendants do not urge that plaintiff is guilty of bad faith, fraud or oppressive or unconscionable conduct. They do rely on waiver or estoppel. However, this record “ ‘does not demonstrate knowledgeable acceptance of late payments over an extended period which would constitute a waiver of the right to insist upon timely payments’” or an estoppel (Bowers v Zaimes, 59 AD2d 803, 804; Ford v Waxman 50 AD2d 585). Concur — Sandler, J. P., Carro and Lupiano, JJ.

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

— Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Tyler, J.), entered on or about February 10, 1982, which denied plaintiff-appellant’s motion for summary judgment in this mortgage foreclosure action, reversed, on the law, and motion granted, with costs. The mortgagee is entitled to enforce an acceleration clause in his contract in the absence of waiver, estoppel, bad faith, fraud, or oppressive or unconscionable conduct (Graf v Hope Bldg. Corp., 254 NY 1; Ferlazzo v Riley, 278 NY 289). Defendants do not urge that plaintiff is guilty of bad faith, fraud or oppressive or unconscionable conduct. They do rely on waiver or estoppel. However, this record “ ‘does not demonstrate knowledgeable acceptance of late payments over an extended period which would constitute a waiver of the right to insist upon timely payments’” or an estoppel (Bowers v Zaimes, 59 AD2d 803, 804; Ford v Waxman 50 AD2d 585). Concur — Sandler, J. P., Carro and Lupiano, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

88 A.D.2d 829, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/mariash-v-bastianich-nyappdiv-1982.

Opinions

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack