From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Morgan v. Long Beach Entertainment Complex

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Dec 8, 1986
125 A.D.2d 378 (N.Y. App. Div. 1986)

Opinion

December 8, 1986

Appeal from the Supreme Court, Nassau County (Velsor, J.).


Ordered that the order is affirmed, with one bill of costs.

The appellants moved to set aside the foreclosure sale conducted in this action upon the ground that they did not receive notice of the sale. Pursuant to an order of the Supreme Court, Nassau County, dated December 31, 1984, a hearing was held to ascertain whether the necessary notice of sale had been served upon the appellants. At the hearing, the plaintiffs' attorney testified, inter alia, that he served both a notice of hearing to compute and a notice of sale upon the attorneys for the appellants, and introduced documentary evidence in support of his claim. While the attorneys for the appellants testified, inter alia, that they did not receive these notices, the hearing court properly held that the presumption of proper mailing was not rebutted (see, Engel v. Lichterman, 62 N.Y.2d 943).

We have considered each of the remaining contentions advanced by the appellants on appeal and find them to be without merit. Niehoff, J.P., Rubin, Eiber and Kunzeman, JJ., concur.


Summaries of

Morgan v. Long Beach Entertainment Complex

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Dec 8, 1986
125 A.D.2d 378 (N.Y. App. Div. 1986)
Case details for

Morgan v. Long Beach Entertainment Complex

Case Details

Full title:GERTRUDE MORGAN et al., Respondents, v. LONG BEACH ENTERTAINMENT COMPLEX…

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

Date published: Dec 8, 1986

Citations

125 A.D.2d 378 (N.Y. App. Div. 1986)

Citing Cases

Roland v. White

Thus, the court properly granted the defendant's motion to vacate the order granting the plaintiff's motion…

Matter of Fowler v. Marks

Respondent established that the suspension order and letter were duly mailed to petitioner at his home…