Washington Mutual Bank v. 373 8th Street Realty Corp.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Washington Mutual Bank v. 373 8th Street Realty Corp.

66 A.D.3d 1007, 886 N.Y.S.2d 810

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

DecidedOctober 27, 2009

StatusPublished

This text of 66 A.D.3d 1007 (Washington Mutual Bank v. 373 8th Street Realty Corp.) 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

Washington Mutual Bank v. 373 8th Street Realty Corp., 66 A.D.3d 1007, 886 N.Y.S.2d 810 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2009).

Pincite

Opinion

In an action to foreclose a mortgage, the plaintiff appeals, as limited by its brief, from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Dabiri, J.), dated September 26, 2008, as granted the motion of certain tenants for leave to intervene in the action as party defendants and to be given notice of the rent overcharge determination made by the New York State Division of Housing and Community Renewal included in any notice of foreclosure sale.

Ordered that the order is affirmed insofar as appealed from, with costs.

The intervenors were properly granted leave to intervene (see CPLR 1012).

The plaintiffs remaining contentions are unpreserved for appellate review or without merit (see Sanford Ave. Realty Co., LLC v Reynoso, 19 AD3d 401 [2005]; Lincoln Sav. Bank v Amerasian Realty Corp., 168 Misc 2d 391 [1995]). Rivera, J.E, Eng, Chambers and Hall, 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, the plaintiff appeals, as limited by its brief, from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Dabiri, J.), dated September 26, 2008, as granted the motion of certain tenants for leave to intervene in the action as party defendants and to be given notice of the rent overcharge determination made by the New York State Division of Housing and Community Renewal included in any notice of foreclosure sale.

Ordered that the order is affirmed insofar as appealed from, with costs.

The intervenors were properly granted leave to intervene (see CPLR 1012).

The plaintiffs remaining contentions are unpreserved for appellate review or without merit (see Sanford Ave. Realty Co., LLC v Reynoso, 19 AD3d 401 [2005]; Lincoln Sav. Bank v Amerasian Realty Corp., 168 Misc 2d 391 [1995]). Rivera, J.E, Eng, Chambers and Hall, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

66 A.D.3d 1007, 886 N.Y.S.2d 810, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/washington-mutual-bank-v-373-8th-street-realty-corp-nyappdiv-2009.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack