Marine Midland Bank v. Rashid

259 A.D.2d 739, 687 N.Y.S.2d 416, 1999 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3167
CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York
DecidedMarch 29, 1999
StatusPublished
Cited by7 cases

This text of 259 A.D.2d 739 (Marine Midland Bank v. Rashid) 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
Marine Midland Bank v. Rashid, 259 A.D.2d 739, 687 N.Y.S.2d 416, 1999 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3167 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1999).

Opinion

In an action to foreclose a mortgage on two parcels of real property, the defendant appeals from (1) an order of the Supreme Court, Dutchess County (Beisner, J.), dated February 27, 1998, which, upon the plaintiffs motion to fix the amount of the deficiency existing after the sale of the first parcel, inter alia, ordered a valuation hearing to aid in the determination of the motion, and (2) an order and judgment (one paper) of the same court, dated May 28, 1998, which, after the valuation hearing, fixed the amount of the deficiency existing after the sale of the first parcel and directed the sale of the second parcel.

Ordered that the appeal from the order is dismissed as no appeal lies as of right from an order directing a hearing to aid in the disposition of the motion (see, CPLR 5701; Bagdy v Progresso Foods Corp., 86 AD2d 589), and leave has not been granted; and it is further,

Ordered that the order and judgment is affirmed; and it is further,

Ordered that the plaintiff is awarded one bill of costs.

Since the defendant had actual notice of the plaintiffs motion, and the plaintiff substantially complied with the service requirements of RPAPL 1371 (2), the trial court properly fixed the amount of the deficiency existing after the sale of the first parcel and directed the sale of the remaining parcel (see, Sarasota, Inc. v Homestead Acres, 249 AD2d 290).

The defendant’s remaining contentions are without merit. S. Miller, J. P., Ritter, Thompson and Joy, JJ., concur.

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

Related

Federal Financial Co. v. Public Administrator
47 A.D.3d 881 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2008)
Rosen v. Swarzman
296 A.D.2d 392 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2002)
Kogler v. Nassau County Medical Center
289 A.D.2d 298 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2001)
Diener v. Diener
281 A.D.2d 384 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2001)
Liberty Mutual Insurance v. Correa
266 A.D.2d 461 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1999)
Mintz v. Mintz
266 A.D.2d 439 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1999)
Neama v. Town of Babylon
266 A.D.2d 364 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1999)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
259 A.D.2d 739, 687 N.Y.S.2d 416, 1999 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3167, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/marine-midland-bank-v-rashid-nyappdiv-1999.