Otto Gerdau Co. v. Anasae Realty Corp.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Otto Gerdau Co. v. Anasae Realty Corp.

251 A.D.2d 174, 674 N.Y.S.2d 350, 1998 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 7283

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

DecidedJune 18, 1998

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 251 A.D.2d 174 (Otto Gerdau Co. v. Anasae Realty 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

Otto Gerdau Co. v. Anasae Realty Corp., 251 A.D.2d 174, 674 N.Y.S.2d 350, 1998 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 7283 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1998).

Pincite

Opinion

[175]*175—Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Helen Freedman, J.), entered October 3, 1997, which granted defendant-appellant’s motion to vacate the foreclosure sale of the mortgaged property and to enjoin the execution and delivery of the deed only to the extent of continuing the injunction against executing and delivering the deed until 9:00 a.m. on September 30, 1997, unanimously affirmed, with costs.

In view of the announcements of the adjourned dates made to bidders in attendance on the prior scheduled sale dates and the corrected publication of the sale date, we agree with the IAS Court’s conclusion that there was adequate notice to potential bidders to insure the fairness of the sale. Defendant’s assertion that the initial obviously erroneous publication of the sale date reduced the number of bidders at the sale and adversely affected the sale price is entirely speculative and, as such, does not constitute a ground for setting the sale aside (see, Buttermark Plumbing & Heating Corp. v Sagarese, 119 AD2d 540, lv denied 68 NY2d 607). “A court may exercise its equitable powers to set aside a judicial sale only where fraud, collusion, mistake, or exploitive overreaching casts suspicion on the fairness of the sale” (Crossland Mtge. Corp. v Frankel, 192 AD2d 571, 572, lv denied 82 NY2d 655). It is plain that defendant has not demonstrated the existence of any of these conditions.

We have considered the defendant-appellant’s other arguments and find that they are without merit. Concur — Milonas, J. P., Nardelli, Wallach and Saxe, JJ.

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

[175]*175—Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Helen Freedman, J.), entered October 3, 1997, which granted defendant-appellant’s motion to vacate the foreclosure sale of the mortgaged property and to enjoin the execution and delivery of the deed only to the extent of continuing the injunction against executing and delivering the deed until 9:00 a.m. on September 30, 1997, unanimously affirmed, with costs.

In view of the announcements of the adjourned dates made to bidders in attendance on the prior scheduled sale dates and the corrected publication of the sale date, we agree with the IAS Court’s conclusion that there was adequate notice to potential bidders to insure the fairness of the sale. Defendant’s assertion that the initial obviously erroneous publication of the sale date reduced the number of bidders at the sale and adversely affected the sale price is entirely speculative and, as such, does not constitute a ground for setting the sale aside (see, Buttermark Plumbing & Heating Corp. v Sagarese, 119 AD2d 540, lv denied 68 NY2d 607). “A court may exercise its equitable powers to set aside a judicial sale only where fraud, collusion, mistake, or exploitive overreaching casts suspicion on the fairness of the sale” (Crossland Mtge. Corp. v Frankel, 192 AD2d 571, 572, lv denied 82 NY2d 655). It is plain that defendant has not demonstrated the existence of any of these conditions.

We have considered the defendant-appellant’s other arguments and find that they are without merit. Concur — Milonas, J. P., Nardelli, Wallach and Saxe, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

251 A.D.2d 174, 674 N.Y.S.2d 350, 1998 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 7283, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/otto-gerdau-co-v-anasae-realty-corp-nyappdiv-1998.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack