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

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York·Decided May 29, 2001·Published·Cited by 1 cases

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.

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

283 A.D.2d 618 (Merrill Lynch Credit Corp. v. Averell) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related