From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

State Savings, F.A. v. Parc Vendome Associates

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, First Department
Jan 23, 1996
223 A.D.2d 464 (N.Y. App. Div. 1996)

Opinion

January 23, 1996

Appeal from the Supreme Court, New York County (Lewis Friedman, J.).


The motion court properly denied assignee MBR Holdings Associates' motion for leave to add seven condominium units to the foreclosure action instituted by its assignor, State Savings. The State Savings complaint in this foreclosure action specifically named only five condominium units and indicated repayment of some of the mortgage loan. We adhere to the view, previously expressed by this Court, "that the failure to proceed against all the security is an abandonment of the lien on the portion omitted" ( Bodner v Brickner, 29 A.D.2d 441, 446). There is no indication, contrary to the claim advanced on appeal, that plaintiff's predecessor was fraudulently induced to omit these seven units from the original foreclosure proceeding. Moreover, we take judicial notice of the fact that the foreclosure proceeding has now terminated with the judgment of foreclosure and actual sale of the premises pursuant thereto ( see, Dulberg v Ebenhart, 68 A.D.2d 323, 327).

We have considered appellant's other contentions and find them to be without merit.

Concur — Sullivan, J.P., Wallach, Rubin, Kupferman and Mazzarelli, JJ.


Summaries of

State Savings, F.A. v. Parc Vendome Associates

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, First Department
Jan 23, 1996
223 A.D.2d 464 (N.Y. App. Div. 1996)
Case details for

State Savings, F.A. v. Parc Vendome Associates

Case Details

Full title:STATE SAVINGS, F.A., Appellant, v. PARC VENDOME ASSOCIATES, LTD., et al.…

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

Date published: Jan 23, 1996

Citations

223 A.D.2d 464 (N.Y. App. Div. 1996)
637 N.Y.S.2d 365

Citing Cases

Wydra v. Chai

In the instant case, the judgment of foreclosure and sale so provided. The general rule is that "[a] failure…

Behette v. Grant

If the same mortgage covers other property, the penalty she incurs in electing that recourse is abandonment…