McCormack v. Anchor Savings Bank, F.S.B.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

McCormack v. Anchor Savings Bank, F.S.B.

181 A.D.2d 580, 582 N.Y.S.2d 6, 1992 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4002

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York·Decided March 24, 1992·Published·Cited by 4 cases

Opinion

— Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Carol H. Arber, J.), entered August 22, 1991, which, upon granting of reargument, adhered to its prior order entered May 20, 1991 cancelling appellant’s lien, unanimously modified, on the law, to the extent of reinstating the lien, and otherwise affirmed, without costs.

Appellant’s defective service of the notice of sale, pursuant to Lien Law § 201, does not vitiate its lien (Giordano v Grand Prix Sales, Serv., Restoration Co., 113 Misc 2d 395, 400). Therefore, only the sale and notice of sale, not the lien, should have been deemed invalid by the May 20, 1991 order. We do not decide whether service of the notice was "commercially reasonable” within the meaning of UCC 9-504 (3), since appellant, by virtue of the notice, had expressly subjected its lien to challenge under the Lien Law. Concur — Milonas, J. P., Rosenberger, Kupferman, Ross and Smith, JJ.

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

— Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Carol H. Arber, J.), entered August 22, 1991, which, upon granting of reargument, adhered to its prior order entered May 20, 1991 cancelling appellant’s lien, unanimously modified, on the law, to the extent of reinstating the lien, and otherwise affirmed, without costs.

Appellant’s defective service of the notice of sale, pursuant to Lien Law § 201, does not vitiate its lien (Giordano v Grand Prix Sales, Serv., Restoration Co., 113 Misc 2d 395, 400). Therefore, only the sale and notice of sale, not the lien, should have been deemed invalid by the May 20, 1991 order. We do not decide whether service of the notice was "commercially reasonable” within the meaning of UCC 9-504 (3), since appellant, by virtue of the notice, had expressly subjected its lien to challenge under the Lien Law. Concur — Milonas, J. P., Rosenberger, Kupferman, Ross and Smith, JJ.

McCormack v. Anchor Savings Bank, F.S.B., 181 A.D.2d 580, 582 N.Y.S.2d 6, 1992 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4002 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1992).

Pincite

181 A.D.2d 580 (McCormack v. Anchor Savings Bank, F.S.B.) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related