Waterman v. Wittemann

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Waterman v. Wittemann

29 A.D.2d 782, 290 N.Y.S.2d 538, 1968 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4559

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

DecidedFebruary 26, 1968

StatusPublished

This text of 29 A.D.2d 782 (Waterman v. Wittemann) 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

Waterman v. Wittemann, 29 A.D.2d 782, 290 N.Y.S.2d 538, 1968 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4559 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1968).

Pincite

Opinion

Order of the Supreme Court, Richmond County, dated April 18, 1967 and made after a hearing, which denied plaintiff’s motion inter alla for leave to enter a deficiency judgment, reversed, on the law and the facts, and motion remitted to the Special Term for a new hearing and a new determination in accordance with the views stated herein, without costs. On the rehearing, the court should consider all the evidence which may affect value, including the alleged hiatus in the market at the time of sale. However, under the Heiman v. Bishop (272 N. Y. 83) line of cases, it is obvious that a market value at the time of sale can be ascertained. Furthermore, the value of $45,000 for Lot B is unwarranted on the record. From the testimony, the highest value possible therefor was $40,500. Beldoek, P. J., Brennan, Hopkins and Martuscello, JJ., concur; Christ, J., dissents and votes to affirm the order, with the following memorandum: In my opinion, the ¡Special Term’s finding was, in effect, a finding that the [783]*783fair market value as of the date of sale was of such amount as to support its determination that no deficiency judgment could be allowed.

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

Order of the Supreme Court, Richmond County, dated April 18, 1967 and made after a hearing, which denied plaintiff’s motion inter alla for leave to enter a deficiency judgment, reversed, on the law and the facts, and motion remitted to the Special Term for a new hearing and a new determination in accordance with the views stated herein, without costs. On the rehearing, the court should consider all the evidence which may affect value, including the alleged hiatus in the market at the time of sale. However, under the Heiman v. Bishop (272 N. Y. 83) line of cases, it is obvious that a market value at the time of sale can be ascertained. Furthermore, the value of $45,000 for Lot B is unwarranted on the record. From the testimony, the highest value possible therefor was $40,500. Beldoek, P. J., Brennan, Hopkins and Martuscello, JJ., concur; Christ, J., dissents and votes to affirm the order, with the following memorandum: In my opinion, the ¡Special Term’s finding was, in effect, a finding that the [783]*783fair market value as of the date of sale was of such amount as to support its determination that no deficiency judgment could be allowed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

29 A.D.2d 782, 290 N.Y.S.2d 538, 1968 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4559, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/waterman-v-wittemann-nyappdiv-1968.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack