Vanderbilt Realty Corp. v. Gordon

134 A.D.2d 586, 521 N.Y.S.2d 489, 1987 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 50794
CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York
DecidedNovember 30, 1987
StatusPublished
Cited by5 cases

This text of 134 A.D.2d 586 (Vanderbilt Realty Corp. v. Gordon) 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
Vanderbilt Realty Corp. v. Gordon, 134 A.D.2d 586, 521 N.Y.S.2d 489, 1987 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 50794 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1987).

Opinion

In a foreclosure action, the defendant Gordon appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County (I. Aronin, J.), entered September 15, 1986, which denied his application to vacate the foreclosure sale.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

The Supreme Court, Kings County, properly rejected the claim of the defendant Gordon that the foreclosure sale was invalid on the ground that Gordon filed a bankruptcy petition at approximately the same time that the sale commenced. The closing on the property was delayed until after the Bankruptcy Court dismissed the petition, with prejudice. Moreover, when Gordon failed to abide by the court-ordered payment schedule, the Bankruptcy Court specifically approved the transfer of title to the purchaser. Gordon had and declined an opportunity to appeal the Bankruptcy Court’s orders in a proper forum, and he may not do so here. Furthermore, because Gordon had a full and fair opportunity to litigate the same issue in the Bankruptcy Court, the application is precluded by the doctrine of collateral estoppel (see, Matter of Van Wormer v Leversee, 87 AD2d 942, 943).

Moreover, the purchaser at the foreclosure sale was an indispensable party to the application and was not named or served (see, CPLR 1001 [a]). Thus, denial of the application on this additional ground was appropriate.

We have considered Gordon’s remaining claims and find [587]*587them to be without merit. Brown, J. P., Eiber, Kunzeman and Spatt, JJ., concur.

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

Related

U.S. Bank Trust, N.A. v. Bank of Am., N.A.
2025 NY Slip Op 01256 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2025)
Citicorp Mortgage, Inc. v. Ronkon
289 A.D.2d 438 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2001)
Home Federal Savings Bank v. Versace
272 A.D.2d 576 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2000)
Federal National Mortgage Ass'n v. New York Financial & Mortgage Co.
222 A.D.2d 647 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1995)
Weldotron Corp. v. Arbee Scales, Inc.
161 A.D.2d 708 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1990)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
134 A.D.2d 586, 521 N.Y.S.2d 489, 1987 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 50794, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/vanderbilt-realty-corp-v-gordon-nyappdiv-1987.