Reyes v. Sequeira

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Reyes v. Sequeira

79 A.D.3d 487, 911 N.Y.S.2d 629

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

DecidedDecember 9, 2010

StatusPublished

This text of 79 A.D.3d 487 (Reyes v. Sequeira) 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

Reyes v. Sequeira, 79 A.D.3d 487, 911 N.Y.S.2d 629 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2010).

Pincite

Opinion

Order, Supreme Court, Bronx County (Geoffrey D. Wright, J.), entered on or about February 23, 2010, which denied defendants’ motion to vacate an order, same court (Dianne T. Renwick, J.), entered on or about April 17, 2008, setting the valuation of the subject real property and to stay the scheduled closing on the property, unanimously affirmed, with costs.

Defendants failed to assert a basis for vacating the April 17, 2008 order, which valued the property based on an average of three court-ordered appraisals and directed a sale despite outstanding unresolved collateral issues. In issuing the valuation order, the court did not ultimately exceed the authority granted to it by the parties to value the properties pursuant to the appraisals. That the valuation was based on three competing appraisals rather than two, does not violate the agreement because the parties specifically agreed to defer valuation to the Court. Concur — Gonzalez, EJ., Saxe, Catterson, Acosta and Manzanet-Daniels, JJ.

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

Order, Supreme Court, Bronx County (Geoffrey D. Wright, J.), entered on or about February 23, 2010, which denied defendants’ motion to vacate an order, same court (Dianne T. Renwick, J.), entered on or about April 17, 2008, setting the valuation of the subject real property and to stay the scheduled closing on the property, unanimously affirmed, with costs.

Defendants failed to assert a basis for vacating the April 17, 2008 order, which valued the property based on an average of three court-ordered appraisals and directed a sale despite outstanding unresolved collateral issues. In issuing the valuation order, the court did not ultimately exceed the authority granted to it by the parties to value the properties pursuant to the appraisals. That the valuation was based on three competing appraisals rather than two, does not violate the agreement because the parties specifically agreed to defer valuation to the Court. Concur — Gonzalez, EJ., Saxe, Catterson, Acosta and Manzanet-Daniels, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

79 A.D.3d 487, 911 N.Y.S.2d 629, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/reyes-v-sequeira-nyappdiv-2010.