Mariash v. Bastianich

88 A.D.2d 829
Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York·Decided June 8, 1982·Published·Cited by 1 cases

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

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

88 A.D.2d 829 (Mariash v. Bastianich) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Southold Savings Bank v. Cutino
118 A.D.2d 555 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1986)