From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Aronian v. Double R Associates

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Nov 18, 2002
299 A.D.2d 432 (N.Y. App. Div. 2002)

Opinion

2001-10083

Argued October 7, 2002.

November 18, 2002.

In an action, inter alia, to foreclose a mortgage, the defendant Double R Associates, L.P., appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Westchester County (Coppola, J.), entered October 16, 2001, which denied its motion, among other things, to set aside the foreclosure sale.

David W. Graber, Garden City, N.Y., for appellant.

Keane Beane, P.C., White Plains, N.Y. (Richard L. O'Rourke, Eric L. Gordon, and Edward J. Phillips of counsel), for respondent.

Before: NANCY E. SMITH, J.P., LEO F. McGINITY, DANIEL F. LUCIANO, STEPHEN G. CRANE, JJ.


DECISION ORDER

ORDERED that the order is affirmed, with costs.

Before the Supreme Court ordered the referee to execute the deed, the appellant was able to argue the merits of its assertion that it could redeem the property (see EMC Mortgage Corp. v. Bobb, 296 A.D.2d 476; RPAPL 1341). The appellant failed to show that it was able to redeem the subject property, and therefore the Supreme Court correctly found no merit to its defense in the underlying foreclosure action and properly allowed the subject property to be deeded to the respondent (see EMC Mortgage Corp. v. Bobb, supra; see generally United Capital Corp. v. 183 Lorraine Street Assoc., 251 A.D.2d 400).

SMITH, J.P., McGINITY, LUCIANO and CRANE, JJ., concur.


Summaries of

Aronian v. Double R Associates

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Nov 18, 2002
299 A.D.2d 432 (N.Y. App. Div. 2002)
Case details for

Aronian v. Double R Associates

Case Details

Full title:JOHN ARONIAN, RESPONDENT, v. DOUBLE R ASSOCIATES, L.P., APPELLANT, ET AL.…

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

Date published: Nov 18, 2002

Citations

299 A.D.2d 432 (N.Y. App. Div. 2002)
749 N.Y.S.2d 732

Citing Cases

Galasso v. 592 Pacific Street Rty. Corp.

The appellant was not entitled to notice of the foreclosure sale as it did not answer the complaint, appear…