Osetek v. Feuer

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Osetek v. Feuer

80 A.D.2d 553, 436 N.Y.S.2d 1007, 1981 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 10215

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

DecidedFebruary 2, 1981

StatusPublished

This text of 80 A.D.2d 553 (Osetek v. Feuer) 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

Osetek v. Feuer, 80 A.D.2d 553, 436 N.Y.S.2d 1007, 1981 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 10215 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1981).

Pincite

Opinion

In an action to foreclose a mortgage on real property, defendant appeals (1) from so much of (a) a judgment of foreclosure and sale of the Supreme Court, Orange County, dated April 20, 1978, and (b) an order of the same court, dated July 6, 1978, as authorized a deficiency judgment against defendant, and (2) from so much of an order of the same court, dated January 4, 1979, as, upon renewal, adhered to the original determination. Appeals from the judgment and from the order dated July 6, 1978 dismissed. They were superseded by the order granting renewal. Order dated January 4, 1979, affirmed insofar as appealed from, on the memorandum decision of Mr. Justice Sweeny at Special Term dated January 4, 1979. Plaintiff is awarded one bill of $50 costs and disbursements. The invocation by Special Term of the doctrine of estoppel was particularly appropriate in the face of appellant’s “fast and loose” conduct shown by the record. Damiani, J. P., Gibbons, Margett and Thompson, 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 on real property, defendant appeals (1) from so much of (a) a judgment of foreclosure and sale of the Supreme Court, Orange County, dated April 20, 1978, and (b) an order of the same court, dated July 6, 1978, as authorized a deficiency judgment against defendant, and (2) from so much of an order of the same court, dated January 4, 1979, as, upon renewal, adhered to the original determination. Appeals from the judgment and from the order dated July 6, 1978 dismissed. They were superseded by the order granting renewal. Order dated January 4, 1979, affirmed insofar as appealed from, on the memorandum decision of Mr. Justice Sweeny at Special Term dated January 4, 1979. Plaintiff is awarded one bill of $50 costs and disbursements. The invocation by Special Term of the doctrine of estoppel was particularly appropriate in the face of appellant’s “fast and loose” conduct shown by the record. Damiani, J. P., Gibbons, Margett and Thompson, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

80 A.D.2d 553, 436 N.Y.S.2d 1007, 1981 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 10215, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/osetek-v-feuer-nyappdiv-1981.