Hudson City Sav. Inst. v. Burton
| Decision Date | 02 February 1984 |
| Citation | 99 A.D.2d 871,472 N.Y.S.2d 749 |
| Parties | HUDSON CITY SAVINGS INSTITUTION, Plaintiff, v. Josef J. BURTON, Defendant, and Anne E. Burton, Respondent. Charles A. Sarner et al., Appellants. |
| Court | New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division |
John C. O'Malley, Rockville Centre, for appellants.
David V. Needleman, Chatham, for respondent.
Before MAHONEY, P.J., and MAIN, MIKOLL, YESAWICH and WEISS, JJ.
Appeal from an order of the County Court of Columbia County, entered July 11, 1983, which denied a motion by Charles and Joyce Sarner, the highest bidders at a mortgage foreclosure sale, to compel delivery to them of possession of the real property foreclosed upon.
In the course of foreclosure proceedings instituted by plaintiff bank, defendant mortgagor Anne Burton's residence was sold at a public auction held on May 1, 1981. Prior to the foreclosure sale, Burton had executed a document with Charles and Joyce Sarner entitled "Receipt for Real Property Deposit". This document, referred to by the parties as a binder agreement, declares that it is not itself a contract of sale but is a basis for a formal contract, the terms of which will be subject to approval by attorneys for both the buyer and seller, and recites a selling price of $66,500. A formal contract was never executed. Instead, the Sarners purchased the property for $46,500 at the mortgage foreclosure sale. A motion by Burton, to which the Sarners were made a party, to set aside the foreclosure sale was denied.
Although County Court found no fraud in the conduct of the sale, and confirmation of the referee's report of sale was not sought, its decision and order entered thereon of August 24, 1981 nevertheless denied confirmation of the referee's report of sale insofar as it related to the "sale and conveyance of the title (in contrast to a lien )" on the mortgaged premises; in all other respects the report was confirmed. Because an appeal from that order by the Sarners was subsequently dismissed by this court as abandoned, it is Burton's contention that the relief the Sarners seek here, namely assistance in securing possession of the property, should have been pursued in the earlier appeal and that the doctrine of res judicata bars any such relief now. Although we agree that the Sarners should have pursued the relief they now seek in their prior appeal, the transparently injudicious result attained in this case prompts us to exercise our discretion and...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Liss v. Trans Auto Systems, Inc.
...during the pendency of the action (Aridas v. Caserta, 41 N.Y.2d 1059, 1061, 396 N.Y.S.2d 170, 364 N.E.2d 835; Hudson City Sav. Inst. v. Burton, 99 A.D.2d 871, 872, 472 N.Y.S.2d 749, appeal dismissed 62 N.Y.2d 801). The Special Term Judge's sua sponte decision to rescind his prior order was ......
-
Greenwood Packing Profit Sharing Plan Trust v. Fournier
...the parties' remaining contentions and find them to be without merit (see, Brown v. Frost, 10 Paige Ch. 243; Hudson City Sav. Inst. v. Burton, 99 A.D.2d 871, 472 N.Y.S.2d 749; Andrews v. O'Mahoney, 112 N.Y. 567, 20 N.E. 374; Lane v. Chantilly Corp., 251 N.Y. 435, 167 N.E. ...
-
Brosnan v. Behette
...to reach the merits of the plaintiffs' arguments notwithstanding the dismissal of their prior appeal (see, Hudson City Sav. Inst. v. Burton, 99 A.D.2d 871, 872, 472 N.Y.S.2d 749; DeRonda v. Greater Amsterdam School Dist., 91 A.D.2d 1088, 1090, 458 N.Y.S.2d 310). While we should clearly exer......
-
Greco v. New York State Tax Com'n
... ... A. George Koevary, New York City, for petitioner ... Robert Abrams, Atty ... ...
-
F. Foreclosure Proceedings Foreclosure Proceedings
...denial).[2116] Cf. Citibank, N.A. v. Plagakis, 21 A.D.3d 393, 394–95, 800 N.Y.S.2d 192 (2d Dep't 2005); Hudson City Sav. Inst. v. Burton, 99 A.D.2d 871, 872, 472 N.Y.S.2d 749 (3d Dep't 1984).[2117] Lincoln Sav. Bank v. Warren, 156 A.D.2d 510, 510, 548 N.Y.S.2d 783 (2d Dep't 1989) (holding t......