Sanders v. Palmer

113 A.D.2d 882, 493 N.Y.S.2d 800, 1985 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 52509
Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York·Decided September 23, 1985·Published·Cited by 2 cases

Opinion

In a mortgage foreclosure action, plaintiffs appeal from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Suffolk County (McCarthy, J.), entered January 4, 1984, which dismissed their complaint.

Judgment affirmed, with costs to respondent Jeanette Palmer.

Since plaintiffs never moved for a deficiency judgment within 90 days after delivery of the deed in the initial forecloforecloaction, the proceeds of this sale are deemed to be in full satisfaction of the mortgage debt and no right to recover any deficiency in any other action or proceeding exists (RPAPL 1371 [2], [3]; see, Bedcro Realty Corp. v Title Guar. & Trust Co., 290 NY 520, 523; Statewide Sav. & Loan Assn. v Canoe Hill, 54 AD2d 1018, affd NY2d 843; State Bank v Amak Enters., 77 Misc 340). Hence, Trial Term correctly dismissed the complaint brought in this second foreclosure action. Bracken, J. P., O’Connor, Rubin and Kunzeman, JJ., concur.

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

Sanders v. Palmer, 113 A.D.2d 882, 493 N.Y.S.2d 800, 1985 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 52509 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1985).

113 A.D.2d 882 (Sanders v. Palmer) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Marine Midland Bank v. Landsdowne Management Associates, Inc.
193 A.D.2d 1091 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1993)
Crossland Savings, FSB v. Patton
182 A.D.2d 496 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1992)