Putnam County National Bank of Carmel v. Pryschlak

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Putnam County National Bank of Carmel v. Pryschlak

213 A.D.2d 466, 624 N.Y.S.2d 892, 1995 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 2728

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

DecidedMarch 13, 1995

StatusPublished

This text of 213 A.D.2d 466 (Putnam County National Bank of Carmel v. Pryschlak) 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

Putnam County National Bank of Carmel v. Pryschlak, 213 A.D.2d 466, 624 N.Y.S.2d 892, 1995 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 2728 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1995).

Pincite

Opinion

—In an action to foreclose a mortgage, the defendants Peter Pryschlak, Jack G. Schwartz, Michael O’Shatz, and Joel Gutterman appeal from (1) so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Putnam County (Hickman, J.), dated June 9, 1993, as granted the branch of plaintiffs motion which was to confirm and for leave to file nunc pro tunc a supplemental Referee’s report and (2) a deficiency judgment of the same court, dated November 16, 1993, which is in favor of the plaintiffs and against them in the principal sum of $349,035.80.

Ordered that the appeal from the order is dismissed, without costs or disbursements; and it is further,

Ordered that the appeal from the judgment is dismissed, without costs or disbursements.

The appeal from the intermediate order must be dismissed because the right of direct appeal therefrom terminated with the entry of judgment in the action (see, Matter of Aho, 39 NY2d 241, 248).

The appeal from the deficiency judgment must also be dismissed for failure to perfect the appeal therefrom and because it was superseded by an amended deficiency judgment of the same court, dated March 31, 1994. In any event, even if we were to consider the issues raised by the appellants in their brief, we would find them to have been rendered academic by the subsequent proceedings in this case. Santucci, J. P., Joy, Friedmann and Florio, 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, the defendants Peter Pryschlak, Jack G. Schwartz, Michael O’Shatz, and Joel Gutterman appeal from (1) so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Putnam County (Hickman, J.), dated June 9, 1993, as granted the branch of plaintiffs motion which was to confirm and for leave to file nunc pro tunc a supplemental Referee’s report and (2) a deficiency judgment of the same court, dated November 16, 1993, which is in favor of the plaintiffs and against them in the principal sum of $349,035.80.

Ordered that the appeal from the order is dismissed, without costs or disbursements; and it is further,

Ordered that the appeal from the judgment is dismissed, without costs or disbursements.

The appeal from the intermediate order must be dismissed because the right of direct appeal therefrom terminated with the entry of judgment in the action (see, Matter of Aho, 39 NY2d 241, 248).

The appeal from the deficiency judgment must also be dismissed for failure to perfect the appeal therefrom and because it was superseded by an amended deficiency judgment of the same court, dated March 31, 1994. In any event, even if we were to consider the issues raised by the appellants in their brief, we would find them to have been rendered academic by the subsequent proceedings in this case. Santucci, J. P., Joy, Friedmann and Florio, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

213 A.D.2d 466, 624 N.Y.S.2d 892, 1995 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 2728, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/putnam-county-national-bank-of-carmel-v-pryschlak-nyappdiv-1995.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack