Modjeski v. Harding

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Modjeski v. Harding

125 A.D.2d 457, 509 N.Y.S.2d 386, 1986 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 62752

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

DecidedDecember 15, 1986

StatusPublished

This text of 125 A.D.2d 457 (Modjeski v. Harding) 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

Modjeski v. Harding, 125 A.D.2d 457, 509 N.Y.S.2d 386, 1986 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 62752 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1986).

Pincite

Opinion

— In an action to foreclose a mortgage, the defendants Fred R. Harding and Eileen Harding appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Orange County (Coppola, J.), dated October 23, 1985, which granted the plaintiffs’ motion for summary judgment against them.

Ordered that the order is reversed, on the law, with costs, and the motion is denied.

The affidavits submitted on behalf of, and in opposition to, the plaintiffs’ motion for summary judgment present an issue of fact as to whether the appellants’ mortgage payment due on September 30, 1984 was made within the 30-day grace period provided by the bond and mortgage (see, Title Guar. & Trust Co. v Queens Freeholds, 267 App Div 787; Fourth Section Corp. v Carton Enters., 29 Misc 2d 746). Mangano, J. P., Brown, Weinstein and Spatt, 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, the defendants Fred R. Harding and Eileen Harding appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Orange County (Coppola, J.), dated October 23, 1985, which granted the plaintiffs’ motion for summary judgment against them.

Ordered that the order is reversed, on the law, with costs, and the motion is denied.

The affidavits submitted on behalf of, and in opposition to, the plaintiffs’ motion for summary judgment present an issue of fact as to whether the appellants’ mortgage payment due on September 30, 1984 was made within the 30-day grace period provided by the bond and mortgage (see, Title Guar. & Trust Co. v Queens Freeholds, 267 App Div 787; Fourth Section Corp. v Carton Enters., 29 Misc 2d 746). Mangano, J. P., Brown, Weinstein and Spatt, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

125 A.D.2d 457, 509 N.Y.S.2d 386, 1986 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 62752, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/modjeski-v-harding-nyappdiv-1986.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack