National Loan Investors, L.P. v. Goertzel

251 A.D.2d 639, 676 N.Y.S.2d 605, 1998 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 7891
CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York
DecidedJune 29, 1998
StatusPublished
Cited by3 cases

This text of 251 A.D.2d 639 (National Loan Investors, L.P. v. Goertzel) 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
National Loan Investors, L.P. v. Goertzel, 251 A.D.2d 639, 676 N.Y.S.2d 605, 1998 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 7891 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1998).

Opinion

—In an action to foreclose a mortgage, the defendants appeal, as limited by their brief, from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Dutchess County (Beisner, J.), dated June 16, 1997, as granted the plaintiffs motion for leave to enter a deficiency judgment against them in the principal sum of $221,321.93.

Ordered that the order is affirmed insofar as appealed from, with costs.

Contrary to the contention of the defendant mortgagors, National Loan Investors, L.P. (hereinafter National Loan), which is the assignee of the mortgage and promissory note, is entitled to the deficiency judgment. In 1991, the mortgagors entered into a stipulation with National Loan’s predecessor-in-interest', which provided that the foreclosure action would be discontinued if certain conditions were met. The mortgagors failed to satisfy those conditions and essentially concede that they are in default under the mortgage and promissory note. In the stipulation, the mortgagors agreed to waive any defenses to the foreclosure action and further agreed that they “shall be jointly and severally liable for any deficiency and shall consent to the entry of judgment against them for the full [640]*640amount of said deficiency”. The stipulation expressly stated that the agreement would be binding on the parties’ successors and assigns. Thus, the terms of the stipulation and the subsequent judgment of foreclosure and sale precluded the mortgagors from raising any defenses, including the defense of laches, in opposition to the motion for leave to enter a deficiency judgment (see, Central Funding Co. v Deglin, 67 AD2d 673, affd 48 NY2d 964; Griffo v Swartz, 61 Misc 2d 504, 508-509). Miller, J. P., Thompson, Joy and Florio, JJ., concur.

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

Related

Waterfront Joints, Inc. v. Tarrytown Boat Club, Inc.
119 A.D.3d 553 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2014)
Gramercy Investment Trust v. Lakemont Homes Nevada, Inc.
198 Cal. App. 4th 903 (California Court of Appeal, 2011)
NAB Asset Venture IV, LLP v. Orangeburg Equities
19 A.D.3d 565 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2005)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
251 A.D.2d 639, 676 N.Y.S.2d 605, 1998 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 7891, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/national-loan-investors-lp-v-goertzel-nyappdiv-1998.