O'Donnell v. Barth

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

O'Donnell v. Barth

106 A.D.2d 378, 482 N.Y.S.2d 293, 1984 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 21411

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York·Decided December 3, 1984·Published·Cited by 1 cases

Opinion

—In an action seeking strict foreclosure extinguishing an encumbrance on real property, plaintiff appeals, as limited by his brief, from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Orange County (Buell, J.), as denied his motion for summary judgment.

[379]*379Order affirmed, insofar as appealed from, without costs or disbursements.

Special Term correctly held that an issue of fact existed as to whether or not plaintiff was aware of the interests of the defendants-respondents prior to the foreclosure sale (see, generally, 15 Carmody-Wait 2d, NY Prac, § 94:6). Titone, J. P., Gibbons, Bracken and Weinstein, JJ., concur.

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

—In an action seeking strict foreclosure extinguishing an encumbrance on real property, plaintiff appeals, as limited by his brief, from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Orange County (Buell, J.), as denied his motion for summary judgment.

[379]*379Order affirmed, insofar as appealed from, without costs or disbursements.

Special Term correctly held that an issue of fact existed as to whether or not plaintiff was aware of the interests of the defendants-respondents prior to the foreclosure sale (see, generally, 15 Carmody-Wait 2d, NY Prac, § 94:6). Titone, J. P., Gibbons, Bracken and Weinstein, JJ., concur.

O'Donnell v. Barth, 106 A.D.2d 378, 482 N.Y.S.2d 293, 1984 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 21411 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1984).

Pincite

106 A.D.2d 378 (O'Donnell v. Barth) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related