Merrill Lynch Credit Corp. v. Averell

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Merrill Lynch Credit Corp. v. Averell

283 A.D.2d 618, 725 N.Y.S.2d 876, 2001 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5522

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

DecidedMay 29, 2001

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 283 A.D.2d 618 (Merrill Lynch Credit Corp. v. Averell) 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 Credit Corp. v. Averell, 283 A.D.2d 618, 725 N.Y.S.2d 876, 2001 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5522 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2001).

Pincite

Opinion

—In an action to foreclose a mortgage, East End Developers, the successful bidder at a foreclosure sale, appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Suffolk County (Floyd, J.), dated October 13, 2000, which denied its motion to compel the referee to pay real estate taxes out of the proceeds of the sale, and granted the plaintiff’s motion to hold it in default of its obligations under the terms of sale.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

“The record demonstrates that the [appellant], an experienced purchaser of foreclosed properties, had notice that the property at issue was being sold subject to the payment by the purchaser of any unpaid taxes, liens, or encumbrances. Having proceeded with the purchase under those terms, the [appellant] cannot now claim that the judgment of foreclosure and sale should be modified to eliminate that obligation” (Better Homes Depot v Kraut, 282 AD2d 637; see, Federal Natl. Mtge. Assn. v Nittoli, 250 AD2d 427). Santucci, J. P., Goldstein, Feuerstein and Crane, JJ., concur.

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

—In an action to foreclose a mortgage, East End Developers, the successful bidder at a foreclosure sale, appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Suffolk County (Floyd, J.), dated October 13, 2000, which denied its motion to compel the referee to pay real estate taxes out of the proceeds of the sale, and granted the plaintiff’s motion to hold it in default of its obligations under the terms of sale.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

“The record demonstrates that the [appellant], an experienced purchaser of foreclosed properties, had notice that the property at issue was being sold subject to the payment by the purchaser of any unpaid taxes, liens, or encumbrances. Having proceeded with the purchase under those terms, the [appellant] cannot now claim that the judgment of foreclosure and sale should be modified to eliminate that obligation” (Better Homes Depot v Kraut, 282 AD2d 637; see, Federal Natl. Mtge. Assn. v Nittoli, 250 AD2d 427). Santucci, J. P., Goldstein, Feuerstein and Crane, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

283 A.D.2d 618, 725 N.Y.S.2d 876, 2001 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5522, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/merrill-lynch-credit-corp-v-averell-nyappdiv-2001.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack