New York Bank for Savings v. H. C. M. Realty Corp.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

New York Bank for Savings v. H. C. M. Realty Corp.

54 A.D.2d 929, 388 N.Y.S.2d 132, 1976 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 14783

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

DecidedNovember 8, 1976

StatusPublished

This text of 54 A.D.2d 929 (New York Bank for Savings v. H. C. M. Realty Corp.) 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

New York Bank for Savings v. H. C. M. Realty Corp., 54 A.D.2d 929, 388 N.Y.S.2d 132, 1976 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 14783 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1976).

Pincite

Opinion

In an action to foreclose a mortgage, the defendant H. C. M. Realty Corp. appeals, as limited by its brief, from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Westchester County, dated May 13, 1976, as granted plaintiff’s cross motion for "summary judgment of foreclosure and related relief’. Order affirmed insofar as appealed from, with $50 costs and disbursements. Although appellant admits that it made no payments whatsoever toward the mortgage sought to be foreclosed after May, 1975, it claims that it had a right to do so pursuant to an agreement with the plaintiff bank, under which payments of amortized principal were to be deferred for six months. Assuming that there was such an agreement with the bank, and that it is enforceable, appellant is in admitted default of the mortgage, for it has not only failed to pay amortization, but interest and escrow as well. Under these circumstances, summary judgment was unquestionably proper. Hopkins, Acting P. J., Martuscello, Margett, Rabin and Hawkins, 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 defendant H. C. M. Realty Corp. appeals, as limited by its brief, from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Westchester County, dated May 13, 1976, as granted plaintiff’s cross motion for "summary judgment of foreclosure and related relief’. Order affirmed insofar as appealed from, with $50 costs and disbursements. Although appellant admits that it made no payments whatsoever toward the mortgage sought to be foreclosed after May, 1975, it claims that it had a right to do so pursuant to an agreement with the plaintiff bank, under which payments of amortized principal were to be deferred for six months. Assuming that there was such an agreement with the bank, and that it is enforceable, appellant is in admitted default of the mortgage, for it has not only failed to pay amortization, but interest and escrow as well. Under these circumstances, summary judgment was unquestionably proper. Hopkins, Acting P. J., Martuscello, Margett, Rabin and Hawkins, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

54 A.D.2d 929, 388 N.Y.S.2d 132, 1976 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 14783, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/new-york-bank-for-savings-v-h-c-m-realty-corp-nyappdiv-1976.