Merrill Lynch Business Financial Systems, Inc. v. Schambra

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Merrill Lynch Business Financial Systems, Inc. v. Schambra

280 A.D.2d 587, 720 N.Y.S.2d 813, 2001 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 1631

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

DecidedFebruary 20, 2001

StatusPublished

This text of 280 A.D.2d 587 (Merrill Lynch Business Financial Systems, Inc. v. Schambra) 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

Merrill Lynch Business Financial Systems, Inc. v. Schambra, 280 A.D.2d 587, 720 N.Y.S.2d 813, 2001 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 1631 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2001).

Pincite

Opinion

—In an action to reforeclose a mortgage the defendant Frank Schambra appeals, as limited by his brief, from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Suffolk County (Doyle, J.), dated June 8, 1999, as denied his motion, inter alia, [588]*588to direct that the credit for rents and profits be based on fair market rental value and that he be permitted access to the subject premises to appraise it.

Ordered that the order is affirmed insofar as appealed from, with costs.

The Supreme Court properly denied the defendant’s motion (see, RPAPL 1522; Merrill Lynch Bus. Fin. Sys. v Schambra, 237 AD2d 418). Goldstein, J. P., Plorio, Luciano and H. Miller, JJ., concur.

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

—In an action to reforeclose a mortgage the defendant Frank Schambra appeals, as limited by his brief, from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Suffolk County (Doyle, J.), dated June 8, 1999, as denied his motion, inter alia, [588]*588to direct that the credit for rents and profits be based on fair market rental value and that he be permitted access to the subject premises to appraise it.

Ordered that the order is affirmed insofar as appealed from, with costs.

The Supreme Court properly denied the defendant’s motion (see, RPAPL 1522; Merrill Lynch Bus. Fin. Sys. v Schambra, 237 AD2d 418). Goldstein, J. P., Plorio, Luciano and H. Miller, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

280 A.D.2d 587, 720 N.Y.S.2d 813, 2001 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 1631, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/merrill-lynch-business-financial-systems-inc-v-schambra-nyappdiv-2001.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack