Werner v. Werner

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Werner v. Werner

88 A.D.2d 911, 450 N.Y.S.2d 566, 1982 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 17244

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

DecidedJune 1, 1982

StatusPublished

This text of 88 A.D.2d 911 (Werner v. Werner) 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

Werner v. Werner, 88 A.D.2d 911, 450 N.Y.S.2d 566, 1982 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 17244 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1982).

Pincite

Opinion

— In a partition action, defendant Otto V. Werner appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Dutchess County (Jiudice, J.), dated December 22, 1981, which denied his motion, inter alia, to set aside a partition sale. Order modified, on the law, by adding after the words “motion is, therefore, denied in its entirety”, the following: “except plaintiff’s nominee, Leonard Golditch, is enjoined from prosecuting the summary proceeding to recover possession until a deed is issued to the purchaser at the judicial sale.” As so modified, order affirmed, without costs or disbursements. The record provides no basis to declare that the judicial sale of the property was improper and should be declared void. However, no summary proceeding to recover possession may be brought by the purchaser until a deed is executed and delivered (RPAPL 721, subd 3). Gulotta, J. P., O’Connor, Thompson and Brown, JJ., concur.

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

— In a partition action, defendant Otto V. Werner appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Dutchess County (Jiudice, J.), dated December 22, 1981, which denied his motion, inter alia, to set aside a partition sale. Order modified, on the law, by adding after the words “motion is, therefore, denied in its entirety”, the following: “except plaintiff’s nominee, Leonard Golditch, is enjoined from prosecuting the summary proceeding to recover possession until a deed is issued to the purchaser at the judicial sale.” As so modified, order affirmed, without costs or disbursements. The record provides no basis to declare that the judicial sale of the property was improper and should be declared void. However, no summary proceeding to recover possession may be brought by the purchaser until a deed is executed and delivered (RPAPL 721, subd 3). Gulotta, J. P., O’Connor, Thompson and Brown, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

88 A.D.2d 911, 450 N.Y.S.2d 566, 1982 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 17244, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/werner-v-werner-nyappdiv-1982.