Resolution Trust Corp. v. Twin Pac Construction of Staten Island Corp.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Resolution Trust Corp. v. Twin Pac Construction of Staten Island Corp.

234 A.D.2d 595, 652 N.Y.S.2d 531, 1996 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 13163

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

DecidedDecember 30, 1996

StatusPublished

This text of 234 A.D.2d 595 (Resolution Trust Corp. v. Twin Pac Construction of Staten Island 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

Resolution Trust Corp. v. Twin Pac Construction of Staten Island Corp., 234 A.D.2d 595, 652 N.Y.S.2d 531, 1996 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 13163 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1996).

Pincite

Opinion

—In four actions, inter alia, to foreclose certain mortgages, the defendant Michael Paccione appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Richmond County (Cusick, J.), dated September 5, 1995, which denied his motion to dismiss the amended complaints in Action Nos. 2, 3, and 4 insofar as asserted against him on the ground that they were barred by the Statute of Limitations.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

The amended complaints were timely interposed against the defendant Michael Paccione since they were served within six years of the plaintiff’s appointment as receiver for Westerleigh Savings (see, 12 USC § 1821 [d] [14] [A] [i] DO; [B]).

The appellant’s remaining contentions are without merit. Bracken, J. P., Thompson, Pizzuto and Luciano, JJ., concur.

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

—In four actions, inter alia, to foreclose certain mortgages, the defendant Michael Paccione appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Richmond County (Cusick, J.), dated September 5, 1995, which denied his motion to dismiss the amended complaints in Action Nos. 2, 3, and 4 insofar as asserted against him on the ground that they were barred by the Statute of Limitations.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

The amended complaints were timely interposed against the defendant Michael Paccione since they were served within six years of the plaintiff’s appointment as receiver for Westerleigh Savings (see, 12 USC § 1821 [d] [14] [A] [i] DO; [B]).

The appellant’s remaining contentions are without merit. Bracken, J. P., Thompson, Pizzuto and Luciano, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

234 A.D.2d 595, 652 N.Y.S.2d 531, 1996 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 13163, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/resolution-trust-corp-v-twin-pac-construction-of-staten-island-corp-nyappdiv-1996.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack