Midwest Financial Acceptance Corp. v. Gonsenhauser

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Midwest Financial Acceptance Corp. v. Gonsenhauser

267 A.D.2d 983, 700 N.Y.S.2d 887, 1999 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 13713

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

DecidedDecember 30, 1999

StatusPublished

This text of 267 A.D.2d 983 (Midwest Financial Acceptance Corp. v. Gonsenhauser) 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

Midwest Financial Acceptance Corp. v. Gonsenhauser, 267 A.D.2d 983, 700 N.Y.S.2d 887, 1999 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 13713 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1999).

Pincite

Opinion

—Order unanimously reversed on the law without costs and motions granted. Memorandum: Supreme Court erred in denying plaintiffs motions to amend the judgment of foreclosure and sale nunc pro tunc to grant a deficiency judgment, which had been inadvertently omitted. Mark J. Gonsenhauser (defendant) had notice of plaintiffs application for a deficiency judgment and stipulated that such judgment be granted. Therefore, no prejudice to defendant could be shown (see, Pines at Setauket v Retirement Mgt. Group, 246 AD2d 528, 530; Poughkeepsie Sav. Bank v Maplewood Land Dev. Co., 210 AD2d 606, 608). (Appeal from Order of Supreme Court, Monroe County, Bergin, J. — Amend Judgment.) Present— Green, J. P., Lawton, Wisner, Scudder and Balio, JJ.

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

—Order unanimously reversed on the law without costs and motions granted. Memorandum: Supreme Court erred in denying plaintiffs motions to amend the judgment of foreclosure and sale nunc pro tunc to grant a deficiency judgment, which had been inadvertently omitted. Mark J. Gonsenhauser (defendant) had notice of plaintiffs application for a deficiency judgment and stipulated that such judgment be granted. Therefore, no prejudice to defendant could be shown (see, Pines at Setauket v Retirement Mgt. Group, 246 AD2d 528, 530; Poughkeepsie Sav. Bank v Maplewood Land Dev. Co., 210 AD2d 606, 608). (Appeal from Order of Supreme Court, Monroe County, Bergin, J. — Amend Judgment.) Present— Green, J. P., Lawton, Wisner, Scudder and Balio, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

267 A.D.2d 983, 700 N.Y.S.2d 887, 1999 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 13713, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/midwest-financial-acceptance-corp-v-gonsenhauser-nyappdiv-1999.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack