Trifiro v. Hernandez

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Trifiro v. Hernandez

172 A.D.2d 515, 567 N.Y.S.2d 861, 1991 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4409

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

DecidedApril 1, 1991

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 172 A.D.2d 515 (Trifiro v. Hernandez) 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

Trifiro v. Hernandez, 172 A.D.2d 515, 567 N.Y.S.2d 861, 1991 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4409 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1991).

Pincite

Opinion

In an action to recover moneys due and owing, the defendant appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Rader, J.H.O.), dated December 28, 1988, which denied his post-judgment motion to vacate a sheriff’s sale of real property.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

We agree with the Supreme Court that, although the notice of sale was required to be served on the judgment debtor in accordance with CPLR 308 (see, CPLR 5236 [c]), the filing requirements for proof of service of process where such service is effectuated pursuant to CPLR 308 (2) or (4) do not apply to service of notices of sale and do not affect the validity of the sale (see, CPLR 2003, 5236 [c]; cf, Hudela v Posner, 70 Mise 2d 726). Thus, the Supreme Court properly denied the motion to vacate the sale. Mangano, P. J., Brown, Sullivan, Harwood and Miller, JJ., concur.

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

In an action to recover moneys due and owing, the defendant appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Rader, J.H.O.), dated December 28, 1988, which denied his post-judgment motion to vacate a sheriff’s sale of real property.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

We agree with the Supreme Court that, although the notice of sale was required to be served on the judgment debtor in accordance with CPLR 308 (see, CPLR 5236 [c]), the filing requirements for proof of service of process where such service is effectuated pursuant to CPLR 308 (2) or (4) do not apply to service of notices of sale and do not affect the validity of the sale (see, CPLR 2003, 5236 [c]; cf, Hudela v Posner, 70 Mise 2d 726). Thus, the Supreme Court properly denied the motion to vacate the sale. Mangano, P. J., Brown, Sullivan, Harwood and Miller, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

172 A.D.2d 515, 567 N.Y.S.2d 861, 1991 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4409, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/trifiro-v-hernandez-nyappdiv-1991.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack