From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Crossland Savings, FSB v. Patton

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, First Department
Apr 14, 1992
182 A.D.2d 496 (N.Y. App. Div. 1992)

Opinion

April 14, 1992

Appeal from the Supreme Court, New York County (William P. McCooe, J.).


It is uncontroverted that the defendant partnership unconditionally delivered the deeds at issue to counsel for Crossland on February 7, 1991. These deeds, which were duly acknowledged, were accepted and retained without objection by counsel on said date. Accordingly, under these circumstances, title to the property vested on that date thus commencing the 90-day time period set forth in RPAPL 1371 (2) (see, Sanders v Palmer, 113 A.D.2d 882, affd 68 N.Y.2d 180). The fact that a deed may not be recorded until a later date does not affect the validity of the conveyance (see, James v Lewis, 135 A.D.2d 785, 786). We find the provisions of RPAPL to govern herein as plaintiff has chosen to pursue its foreclosure remedy in Supreme Court.

Concur — Sullivan, J.P., Ellerin, Asch and Kassal, JJ.


Summaries of

Crossland Savings, FSB v. Patton

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, First Department
Apr 14, 1992
182 A.D.2d 496 (N.Y. App. Div. 1992)
Case details for

Crossland Savings, FSB v. Patton

Case Details

Full title:CROSSLAND SAVINGS, FSB, Appellant, v. D. KENNETH PATTON, Respondent, et…

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

Date published: Apr 14, 1992

Citations

182 A.D.2d 496 (N.Y. App. Div. 1992)
582 N.Y.S.2d 21

Citing Cases

Tomhannock, LLC v. Roustabout Res., LLC

Further, as Supreme Court correctly noted, Real Property Law § 291 does not compel plaintiff to actually…

Steuben Trust Co. v. Buono

A motion for a deficiency judgment is part of, and not separate from, the foreclosure action ( see, RPAPL…