NYCTL 1996-1 v. Harval Development Corp.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

NYCTL 1996-1 v. Harval Development Corp.

19 A.D.3d 236, 796 N.Y.S.2d 914, 2005 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 6813

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

DecidedJune 21, 2005

StatusPublished

This text of 19 A.D.3d 236 (NYCTL 1996-1 v. Harval Development 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

NYCTL 1996-1 v. Harval Development Corp., 19 A.D.3d 236, 796 N.Y.S.2d 914, 2005 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 6813 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2005).

Pincite

Opinion

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Richard E Braun, J.), entered May 24, 2004, which, in a surplus money [237]*237proceeding, inter alia, denied the cross motion by the assignee of the second mortgagee to pay it the surplus, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

Defendant Blake’s claim was untimely (CPLR 213 [4]; Green-point Sav. Bank v Kijik, 297 AD2d 359 [2002]; see also Island Holding v O’Brien, 6 AD3d 498 [2004], lv denied 4 NY3d 701 [2004]). Its attempt to distinguish Kijik is not supported by the record. The failure to notice the foreclosure plaintiffs, as required under RPAPL 1361, was more than a mere irregularity. Concur—Mazzarelli, J.P., Friedman, Sullivan, Williams and Gonzalez, JJ.

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

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Richard E Braun, J.), entered May 24, 2004, which, in a surplus money [237]*237proceeding, inter alia, denied the cross motion by the assignee of the second mortgagee to pay it the surplus, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

Defendant Blake’s claim was untimely (CPLR 213 [4]; Green-point Sav. Bank v Kijik, 297 AD2d 359 [2002]; see also Island Holding v O’Brien, 6 AD3d 498 [2004], lv denied 4 NY3d 701 [2004]). Its attempt to distinguish Kijik is not supported by the record. The failure to notice the foreclosure plaintiffs, as required under RPAPL 1361, was more than a mere irregularity. Concur—Mazzarelli, J.P., Friedman, Sullivan, Williams and Gonzalez, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

19 A.D.3d 236, 796 N.Y.S.2d 914, 2005 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 6813, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/nyctl-1996-1-v-harval-development-corp-nyappdiv-2005.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack