Sanders v. Palmer

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Sanders v. Palmer

113 A.D.2d 882, 493 N.Y.S.2d 800, 1985 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 52509

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

DecidedSeptember 23, 1985

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 113 A.D.2d 882 (Sanders v. Palmer) 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

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).

Pincite

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

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.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

113 A.D.2d 882, 493 N.Y.S.2d 800, 1985 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 52509, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/sanders-v-palmer-nyappdiv-1985.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack