From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Battista v. Liuzzi

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, First Department
Mar 27, 1962
15 A.D.2d 910 (N.Y. App. Div. 1962)

Opinion

March 27, 1962


Order entered on June 20, 1958 and resettled order entered on September 11, 1958 unanimously modified on the law and the facts to strike the second and third decretal paragraphs of said orders, and to strike all language in the first decretal paragraphs following the words "is granted", and is otherwise affirmed, with $20 costs and disbursements to the appellants. "[T]he judicial sale of real property must conform to the judgment to sell and the terms of sale may not deviate therefrom". ( Zouppas v. Yannikidou, 16 A.D.2d 52, 55; Becker v. Muehlig, 221 App. Div. 512, affd. 248 N.Y. 543; cf. Dicianni v. Wrong, 224 App. Div. 621.) On the argument of this appeal able counsel for the appellants frankly, and commendably, stated that they were seeking only the reimbursement of taxes paid in disobedience to the terms of the judgment, and the repayment of a duplicated interest payment. Undoubtedly a like fair and co-operative attitude by others intimately concerned would lead to an early resolution of the differences which exist, and expedite the obtaining of necessary judicial approval. Settle order on notice.

Concur — Rabin, J.P., Valente, McNally, Stevens and Steuer, JJ.


Summaries of

Battista v. Liuzzi

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, First Department
Mar 27, 1962
15 A.D.2d 910 (N.Y. App. Div. 1962)
Case details for

Battista v. Liuzzi

Case Details

Full title:CHARLES BATTISTA, Respondent, v. IDA LIUZZI et al., Appellants, and…

Court:Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, First Department

Date published: Mar 27, 1962

Citations

15 A.D.2d 910 (N.Y. App. Div. 1962)

Citing Cases

U.S. v. East Ridge Associates

The Plaintiff offers White v. Moore. 181 S.E.2d 734, 736 (N.C.Ct.App. 1971), and Battista v. Liuzzi. 15…

Bank of New York v. Love

In the present case, the judgment, but not the terms of sale, was consistent with the statute. We have…