New York TRW Title Insurance v. Wade's Canadian Inn & Cocktail Lounge, Inc.

255 A.D.2d 823, 679 N.Y.S.2d 856, 1998 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 12514
CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York
DecidedNovember 19, 1998
StatusPublished
Cited by2 cases

This text of 255 A.D.2d 823 (New York TRW Title Insurance v. Wade's Canadian Inn & Cocktail Lounge, Inc.) 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 TRW Title Insurance v. Wade's Canadian Inn & Cocktail Lounge, Inc., 255 A.D.2d 823, 679 N.Y.S.2d 856, 1998 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 12514 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1998).

Opinion

Crew III, J.

Appeal from an order of the Supreme Court (Viscardi, J.), entered July 31, 1997 in Warren County, which, inter alia, issued a final judgment of foreclosure and sale.

A more detailed statement of the facts at issue herein may be found in this Court’s prior decisions in this matter (241 AD2d 845, lv dismissed 91 NY2d 848; 225 AD2d 863; 199 AD2d 661). Briefly, this is a mortgage foreclosure action wherein plaintiff sought to foreclose upon an equitable mortgage encumbering three lots located in the Village of Lake George, Warren County, title to which is in the names of defendants Wade’s Canadian Inn and Cocktail Lounge, Inc. and Robert Rastelli (hereinafter collectively referred to as defendants). A final judgment of foreclosure and sale was issued by Supreme Court in July 1997, and it is from that judgment that defendants now appeal.

The sole issue raised on this appeal is whether Supreme Court erred by reforming the mortgage in question so that it specifically encumbered three separate parcels of real property, when, according to defendants, it should have encumbered only one of them. It is uncontested, however, that this very issue was considered and rejected by this Court when this matter was last before us (241 AD2d 845, 846, supra [“Defendants’ remaining contentions, including their assertion that the equitable mortgage covered only the 75 Canada Street property, have been examined and found to be lacking in merit”]). That ruling is now the law of the case (see, Beltrone v General Schuyler & Co., 252 AD2d 640; see also, Siegel, NY Prac § 448, at 680 [2d ed]) and Supreme Court’s order is, accordingly, affirmed.

Mikoll, J. P., Mercure, Peters and Carpinello, JJ., concur. Ordered that the order is affirmed, without costs.

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

Related

LDV Enterprises, Inc. v. Puma
297 A.D.2d 710 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2002)
In re Burns
287 A.D.2d 862 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2001)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
255 A.D.2d 823, 679 N.Y.S.2d 856, 1998 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 12514, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/new-york-trw-title-insurance-v-wades-canadian-inn-cocktail-lounge-inc-nyappdiv-1998.