From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Frank Buttermark Plumbing v. Sagarese

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Apr 7, 1986
119 A.D.2d 540 (N.Y. App. Div. 1986)

Summary

holding that a sale that returned 30% of the fair market value was not “so inadequate as to shock the court's conscience” and as such would not be vacated

Summary of this case from Miller v. Greenwich Capital Fin. Prods., Inc. (In re Am. Bus. Fin. Servs., Inc.)

Opinion

April 7, 1986

Appeal from the Supreme Court, Richmond County (Felig, J.).


Order affirmed, without costs or disbursements.

The defendants contend that the foreclosure sale should have been set aside on the grounds of improper notice and inadequacy of the sale price. Both contentions are without merit.

Since the adjournment of the foreclosure sale was for a period not exceeding four weeks, a single publication of the postponed date sufficed as adequate notice of the foreclosure sale, regardless of the fact the sale was adjourned for a reason other than the failure of the Referee appointed to conduct the sale to appear (see, Guardian Fed. Sav. Loan Assn. v. Horse-Hawk Holding Corp., 72 A.D.2d 737; Southold Sav. Bank v. Gilligan, 76 Misc.2d 30). Furthermore, mere inadequacy of price is insufficient reason to vacate a sale, unless there are additional circumstances that warrant invocation of equity powers (Guardian Loan Co. v. Early, 47 N.Y.2d 515, 521) or unless the price is so inadequate as to shock the court's conscience (Matter of Superintendent of Banks of State of N.Y. [Goldsmith], 207 N.Y. 11; Polish Natl. Alliance v. White Eagle Hall Co., 98 A.D.2d 400). The sale of these premises at 30% of the defendants' uncorroborated opinion as to their fair market value is not so unconscionably low as to warrant vacatur of the sale (see, Polish Natl. Alliance v. White Eagle Hall Co., supra [37%]; Weir v. United States, 339 F.2d 82 [30%]; Magnolia Springs Apts. v. United States, 323 F.2d 726 [34%]). The sale was duly advertised and there is no evidence of any irregularity that would have inhibited the attendance of other prospective bidders. Accordingly, we find no abuse of discretion in Special Term's refusal to vacate the sale. Mollen, P.J., Rubin, Eiber and Kooper, JJ., concur.


Summaries of

Frank Buttermark Plumbing v. Sagarese

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Apr 7, 1986
119 A.D.2d 540 (N.Y. App. Div. 1986)

holding that a sale that returned 30% of the fair market value was not “so inadequate as to shock the court's conscience” and as such would not be vacated

Summary of this case from Miller v. Greenwich Capital Fin. Prods., Inc. (In re Am. Bus. Fin. Servs., Inc.)
Case details for

Frank Buttermark Plumbing v. Sagarese

Case Details

Full title:FRANK BUTTERMARK PLUMBING AND HEATING CORP., Respondent, v. FRANK…

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

Date published: Apr 7, 1986

Citations

119 A.D.2d 540 (N.Y. App. Div. 1986)

Citing Cases

Adobe Oilfield Servs. Ltd. v. PNC Bank N.A. (In re Adobe Trucking, Inc.)

Courts have consistently declined to disturb a foreclosure sale upon a challenge to the sale price of the…

Trustco Bank New York v. Collins

In the absence of fraud, collusion or other irregularity, the foreclosure sale will not be set aside unless…