Mortgage Electronic Registration Systems, Inc. v. Elliot

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Mortgage Electronic Registration Systems, Inc. v. Elliot

69 A.D.3d 911, 892 N.Y.2d 794

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

DecidedJanuary 26, 2010

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 69 A.D.3d 911 (Mortgage Electronic Registration Systems, Inc. v. Elliot) 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

Mortgage Electronic Registration Systems, Inc. v. Elliot, 69 A.D.3d 911, 892 N.Y.2d 794 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2010).

Pincite

Opinion

[912]*912There is no authority for the allowance of an attorney’s fee from the surplus funds in an action to foreclose a mortgage (see Reilly v Empire State Improvement Corp., 251 NY 351, 353 [1929]; Realty Assoc. Sec. Corp. v Jaybar Realty Corp., 257 App Div 1001, 1001 [1939], affd 282 NY 603 [1940]; Sadow v Poskin Realty Corp., 63 Mise 2d 499, 508-509 [1970]). Thus, the Supreme Court was without authority to award $3,000 from the surplus funds to Sweeney, Gallo, Reich & Bolz, LLP attorneys for the nonparty claimant Citimortgage, Inc., as an attorney’s fee.

The parties’ remaining contentions either are without merit or need not be reached in light of our determination. Prudenti, PJ., Mastro, Florio and Austin, JJ., concur,

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

[912]*912There is no authority for the allowance of an attorney’s fee from the surplus funds in an action to foreclose a mortgage (see Reilly v Empire State Improvement Corp., 251 NY 351, 353 [1929]; Realty Assoc. Sec. Corp. v Jaybar Realty Corp., 257 App Div 1001, 1001 [1939], affd 282 NY 603 [1940]; Sadow v Poskin Realty Corp., 63 Mise 2d 499, 508-509 [1970]). Thus, the Supreme Court was without authority to award $3,000 from the surplus funds to Sweeney, Gallo, Reich & Bolz, LLP attorneys for the nonparty claimant Citimortgage, Inc., as an attorney’s fee.

The parties’ remaining contentions either are without merit or need not be reached in light of our determination. Prudenti, PJ., Mastro, Florio and Austin, JJ., concur,

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

69 A.D.3d 911, 892 N.Y.2d 794, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/mortgage-electronic-registration-systems-inc-v-elliot-nyappdiv-2010.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack