NYCTL 1997-1 Trust v. Oneg Shabbos, Inc.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

NYCTL 1997-1 Trust v. Oneg Shabbos, Inc.

5 A.D.3d 568, 772 N.Y.S.2d 848, 2004 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 2690

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

DecidedMarch 15, 2004

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 5 A.D.3d 568 (NYCTL 1997-1 Trust v. Oneg Shabbos, 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

NYCTL 1997-1 Trust v. Oneg Shabbos, Inc., 5 A.D.3d 568, 772 N.Y.S.2d 848, 2004 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 2690 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2004).

Pincite

Opinion

In an action to foreclose tax liens, the defendant Square Funding Corp. appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Kramer, J.), dated March 11, 2003, which denied its motion to cancel the notice of pendency filed in the action on the ground that a prior notice of pendency filed in the action had lapsed.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

Administrative Code of City of NY § 11-335 provides that actions to foreclose tax liens shall be governed by the “rules of practice applicable to actions to foreclose mortgages on real property.” A new notice of pendency may be filed in a mortgage foreclosure action despite the cancellation of a previous notice of pendency (see Horowitz v Griggs, 2 AD3d 404 [2003]; Campbell v Smith, 309 AD2d 581 [2003]; Slutsky v Blooming Grove Inn, 147 AD2d 208 [1989]). Smith, J.P., Goldstein, Mastro and Rivera, JJ., concur.

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

In an action to foreclose tax liens, the defendant Square Funding Corp. appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Kramer, J.), dated March 11, 2003, which denied its motion to cancel the notice of pendency filed in the action on the ground that a prior notice of pendency filed in the action had lapsed.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

Administrative Code of City of NY § 11-335 provides that actions to foreclose tax liens shall be governed by the “rules of practice applicable to actions to foreclose mortgages on real property.” A new notice of pendency may be filed in a mortgage foreclosure action despite the cancellation of a previous notice of pendency (see Horowitz v Griggs, 2 AD3d 404 [2003]; Campbell v Smith, 309 AD2d 581 [2003]; Slutsky v Blooming Grove Inn, 147 AD2d 208 [1989]). Smith, J.P., Goldstein, Mastro and Rivera, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

5 A.D.3d 568, 772 N.Y.S.2d 848, 2004 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 2690, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/nyctl-1997-1-trust-v-oneg-shabbos-inc-nyappdiv-2004.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack