Waldman v. Kent Investors, Inc.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Waldman v. Kent Investors, Inc.

56 A.D.2d 567, 392 N.Y.S.2d 7, 1977 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 10592

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

DecidedFebruary 28, 1977

StatusPublished

This text of 56 A.D.2d 567 (Waldman v. Kent Investors, Inc.) 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

Waldman v. Kent Investors, Inc., 56 A.D.2d 567, 392 N.Y.S.2d 7, 1977 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 10592 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1977).

Pincite

Opinion

Order, Supreme Court, New York County,

entered July 21, 1976, granting plaintiff’s motion to confirm the Referee’s report of sale and granting a deficiency judgment in the sum of $43,793.38, unanimously affirmed, with $60 costs and disbursements to respondent. In the case at bar, the mortgaged premises had been sold and the plaintiff had made application, pursuant to section 1371 of the Real Property Actions and [568]*568Proceedings Law, to confirm the Referee’s report of sale and for entry of a deficiency judgment for the balance due and owing. Plaintiff submitted an affidavit of an expert to support its application. In opposition, one of the defendants, an attorney, submitted an affirmation which did not refute the proof offered by the plaintiff sufficiently to raise an issue of fact warranting a hearing (Real Property Actions and Proceedings Law, § 1371, subd 2), and we have accordingly affirmed the order of Special Term. Concur—Murphy, J. P., Lupiano, Capozzoli, Lane and Markewich, JJ.

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

Order, Supreme Court, New York County,

entered July 21, 1976, granting plaintiff’s motion to confirm the Referee’s report of sale and granting a deficiency judgment in the sum of $43,793.38, unanimously affirmed, with $60 costs and disbursements to respondent. In the case at bar, the mortgaged premises had been sold and the plaintiff had made application, pursuant to section 1371 of the Real Property Actions and [568]*568Proceedings Law, to confirm the Referee’s report of sale and for entry of a deficiency judgment for the balance due and owing. Plaintiff submitted an affidavit of an expert to support its application. In opposition, one of the defendants, an attorney, submitted an affirmation which did not refute the proof offered by the plaintiff sufficiently to raise an issue of fact warranting a hearing (Real Property Actions and Proceedings Law, § 1371, subd 2), and we have accordingly affirmed the order of Special Term. Concur—Murphy, J. P., Lupiano, Capozzoli, Lane and Markewich, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

56 A.D.2d 567, 392 N.Y.S.2d 7, 1977 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 10592, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/waldman-v-kent-investors-inc-nyappdiv-1977.