Lennar Northeast v. Gifaldi
258 A.D.2d 240 (N.Y. App. Div. 1999) Cited 14 timesJuly 9, 1999 Appeal from Order of Supreme Court, Monroe County, (Siracuse, J.). OPINION OF THE COURT PINE, J. P. The issue presented in these appeals is when a foreclosure sale is consummated within the meaning of RPAPL 1371. Chase Manhattan Bank commenced foreclosure actions against two pieces of property, one in Rochester and the other in Buffalo, owned by Carl A. Gifaldi and Eva Gifaldi (defendants). Plaintiff, Lennar Northeast Partners Limited Partnership (Lennar), subsequently acquired the loans
National Bank of Sussex County v. Betar
207 A.D.2d 610 (N.Y. App. Div. 1994) Cited 11 timesAugust 4, 1994 Appeal from the Supreme Court, Orange County (Ingrassia, J.). Cardona, P.J. In June 1991, plaintiff obtained a judgment of foreclosure and sale against defendants in the amount of $334,000, together with costs and interest foreclosing two mortgages executed by defendants. Plaintiff purchased the property at the Referee's sale on September 16, 1991 for the sum of $125,000. The Referee computed a deficiency due to plaintiff of $225,332. The Referee executed a deed to plaintiff dated
Crossland Savings, FSB v. Patton
182 A.D.2d 496 (N.Y. App. Div. 1992) Cited 11 timesApril 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
First Federal Savings & Loan Ass'n v. Ivy Ridge, Inc.
76 Misc. 2d 208 (N.Y. Sup. Ct. 1973) Cited 6 timesDecember 5, 1973 Hancock, Estabrook, Ryan, Shove Hust ( Melvin E. Holm of counsel), for plaintiff. Charles R. Rinaldo for Leonard C. Rinaldo, Sr., defendant. JAMES H. BOOMER, J. In this mortgage foreclosure action the mortgagee bank seeks a judgment of foreclosure and sale, not only of the real property, an apartment house, but also of the personal property used in connection with the apartment house. The mortgage covers the personal property as well as the real property and the only question involved
Eyck v. Whitbeck
156 N.Y. 341 (N.Y. 1898) Cited 117 timesIn Ten Eyck v. Whitbeck (156 N.Y. 341) the court said, page 353: "Where the relation between the parties is that of parent and child, principal and agent, or where one party is situated so as to exercise a controlling influence over the will and conduct of another, transactions between them are scrutinized with extreme vigilance, and clear evidence is required that the transaction was understood, and that there was no fraud, mistake or undue influence.
Buszozak v. Wolo
125 Misc. 546 (N.Y. Sup. Ct. 1925) Cited 11 timesVoiding recorded deed, “in view of the absence of an intent to pass title and of defendants' lack of knowledge of the transaction”
Brackett v. Barney
28 N.Y. 333 (N.Y. 1863) Cited 25 timesAnalogizing "presentment" with "delivery", and noting that where, as with a deed, delivery and acceptance is necessary to give effect to an instrument, common law dictates that delivery (or presentment), implies acceptance, without which, it is "nugatory"