Moose River Park, Inc. v. Tureck

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Moose River Park, Inc. v. Tureck

115 A.D.2d 999, 497 N.Y.S.2d 561, 1985 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 55392

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

DecidedDecember 20, 1985

StatusPublished

This text of 115 A.D.2d 999 (Moose River Park, Inc. v. Tureck) 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

Moose River Park, Inc. v. Tureck, 115 A.D.2d 999, 497 N.Y.S.2d 561, 1985 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 55392 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1985).

Pincite

Opinion

Order unanimously modified, on the law, and, as modified, affirmed, without costs, in accordance with the following memorandum: Special Term properly concluded that the affirmative defenses and counterclaims were without merit and granted summary judgment to plaintiff in this mortgage foreclosure action. The court erred, however, in providing in its second decretal paragraph for adjustments and setoffs to the amount found to be due under the bond and mortgage. Plaintiff is entitled to enforce the mortgage in accordance with its terms pursuant to RPAPL article 13. Accordingly, the second decretal paragraph is modified to provide that the Referee compute the actual amount due, including any sums that may be owing for rental under paragraph 13 of the bond and mortgage. (Appeal from order of Supreme Court, Lewis County, Miller, J.—appoint referee.) Present—Hancock, Jr., J. P., Callahan, Denman, Green and Pine, JJ.

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

Order unanimously modified, on the law, and, as modified, affirmed, without costs, in accordance with the following memorandum: Special Term properly concluded that the affirmative defenses and counterclaims were without merit and granted summary judgment to plaintiff in this mortgage foreclosure action. The court erred, however, in providing in its second decretal paragraph for adjustments and setoffs to the amount found to be due under the bond and mortgage. Plaintiff is entitled to enforce the mortgage in accordance with its terms pursuant to RPAPL article 13. Accordingly, the second decretal paragraph is modified to provide that the Referee compute the actual amount due, including any sums that may be owing for rental under paragraph 13 of the bond and mortgage. (Appeal from order of Supreme Court, Lewis County, Miller, J.—appoint referee.) Present—Hancock, Jr., J. P., Callahan, Denman, Green and Pine, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

115 A.D.2d 999, 497 N.Y.S.2d 561, 1985 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 55392, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/moose-river-park-inc-v-tureck-nyappdiv-1985.