Ulster Savings Bank v. Bash

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Ulster Savings Bank v. Bash

114 A.D.2d 500, 494 N.Y.S.2d 413, 1985 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 53203

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

DecidedOctober 28, 1985

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 114 A.D.2d 500 (Ulster Savings Bank v. Bash) 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

Ulster Savings Bank v. Bash, 114 A.D.2d 500, 494 N.Y.S.2d 413, 1985 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 53203 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1985).

Pincite

Opinion

—In an action to foreclose a mortgage, defendant Yigal A. Bash appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Dutchess County (Burchell, J.), dated January 7, 1985, which denied his motion for an order setting aside a foreclosure sale and for related relief.

Order reversed, with costs, motion granted, and matter remitted to the Supreme Court, Dutchess County, for further proceedings.

At a mortgage foreclosure sale, appellant, the highest bid[501]*501der, attempted to make his down payment with a combination of cash and two out-of-State bank checks made out to the Referee. The Referee informed appellant that this form of payment did not comply with the terms of sale which called for cash or certified checks. Appellant then asked the Referee to sign the checks so that he could cash them. She refused to do so, even though she could have indorsed them "without recourse” (see, UCC 3-414). Thereupon, the Referee reopened the bidding and accepted a bid $10,000 lower than appellant’s and allowed this second bidder an opportunity to convert his bank check, made payable to himself, to cash for the down payment.

The Referee’s actions, although not fraudulent, cast an aura of unfairness over the conduct of the sale and, therefore, we exercise our discretion to set it aside (see, United States v Thwaites Place Assoc., 548 F Supp 94, affd 722 F2d 729). Gibbons, J. P., Brown, Niehoff and Fiber, JJ., concur.

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

—In an action to foreclose a mortgage, defendant Yigal A. Bash appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Dutchess County (Burchell, J.), dated January 7, 1985, which denied his motion for an order setting aside a foreclosure sale and for related relief.

Order reversed, with costs, motion granted, and matter remitted to the Supreme Court, Dutchess County, for further proceedings.

At a mortgage foreclosure sale, appellant, the highest bid[501]*501der, attempted to make his down payment with a combination of cash and two out-of-State bank checks made out to the Referee. The Referee informed appellant that this form of payment did not comply with the terms of sale which called for cash or certified checks. Appellant then asked the Referee to sign the checks so that he could cash them. She refused to do so, even though she could have indorsed them "without recourse” (see, UCC 3-414). Thereupon, the Referee reopened the bidding and accepted a bid $10,000 lower than appellant’s and allowed this second bidder an opportunity to convert his bank check, made payable to himself, to cash for the down payment.

The Referee’s actions, although not fraudulent, cast an aura of unfairness over the conduct of the sale and, therefore, we exercise our discretion to set it aside (see, United States v Thwaites Place Assoc., 548 F Supp 94, affd 722 F2d 729). Gibbons, J. P., Brown, Niehoff and Fiber, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

114 A.D.2d 500, 494 N.Y.S.2d 413, 1985 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 53203, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/ulster-savings-bank-v-bash-nyappdiv-1985.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack