Tirelli v. Bicknell

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Tirelli v. Bicknell

308 A.D.2d 579, 764 N.Y.S.2d 868, 2003 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 9871

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

DecidedSeptember 29, 2003

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 308 A.D.2d 579 (Tirelli v. Bicknell) 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

Tirelli v. Bicknell, 308 A.D.2d 579, 764 N.Y.S.2d 868, 2003 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 9871 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2003).

Pincite

Opinion

—In an action to foreclose a tax lien, the defendant Bender & Bodnar, sued herein as Bender & Bender, Esqs., and the nonparty Development Strategies, LLC, appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Westchester County (Donovan, J.), entered April 11, 2002, which denied their motion to set aside the foreclosure sale.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with one bill of costs.

The motion of the defendant Bender & Bodnar, sued herein as Bender & Bender, Esqs., and the nonparty Development Strategies, LLC, to set aside the foreclosure sale was properly denied on the ground of laches (see Amsterdam Sav. Bank v City View Mgt. Corp., 45 NY2d 854 [1978]; First Nationwide Bank v Calano, 223 AD2d 524, 525 [1996]).

The parties’ remaining contentions are academic. Ritter, J.P., Goldstein, McGinity and Crane, JJ., concur.

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

—In an action to foreclose a tax lien, the defendant Bender & Bodnar, sued herein as Bender & Bender, Esqs., and the nonparty Development Strategies, LLC, appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Westchester County (Donovan, J.), entered April 11, 2002, which denied their motion to set aside the foreclosure sale.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with one bill of costs.

The motion of the defendant Bender & Bodnar, sued herein as Bender & Bender, Esqs., and the nonparty Development Strategies, LLC, to set aside the foreclosure sale was properly denied on the ground of laches (see Amsterdam Sav. Bank v City View Mgt. Corp., 45 NY2d 854 [1978]; First Nationwide Bank v Calano, 223 AD2d 524, 525 [1996]).

The parties’ remaining contentions are academic. Ritter, J.P., Goldstein, McGinity and Crane, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

308 A.D.2d 579, 764 N.Y.S.2d 868, 2003 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 9871, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/tirelli-v-bicknell-nyappdiv-2003.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack