Supreme Court, Appellate Division,
First Department, New York.
FEDERAL NATIONAL MORTGAGE ASSOCIATION, Plaintiff,
v.
John NITTOLI, et al., Defendants,
Ludlum Corp. Profit Sharing Plan and Trust, Defendant-Respondent,
James Pi, et al., Non-Party Appellants.
May 12, 1998.
Andrew Morganstern, for defendant-respondent.
Kenneth Kirschenbaum, for non-party appellants.
*427 Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Beverly Cohen, J.), entered
September 30, 1997, which denied appellants successful bidders' motion to set
aside a foreclosure sale and compel return of their downpayment deposited with
the Referee, unanimously affirmed, with costs.
Sale of the premises subject to unpaid taxes and assessments was not a
violation of RPAPL 1354(2) since the judgment of foreclosure so provided. Even
if it were such a violation, appellants had notice of such condition and
therefore cannot claim prejudice (RPAPL 231[6]; cf., Aaron v. Kent, 182 A.D.2d
960, 581 N.Y.S.2d 933). Nor should the sale be set aside because of the
continued occupancy of the mortgagor, whose right of possession continues until
delivery of the Referee's deed (see, Central Hanover Bank & Trust Co. v. Boccia,
244 App.Div. 106, 112, 278 N.Y.S. 737). We have considered appellants'
remaining arguments and find them to be without merit.
MILONAS, J.P., and WALLACH, RUBIN, MAZZARELLI and SAXE, JJ., concur.
671 N.Y.S.2d 657 (Mem), 250 A.D.2d 427, 1998 N.Y. Slip Op. 04780
END OF DOCUMENT
Supreme Court, Appellate Division, First Department, New York.FEDERAL NATIONAL MORTGAGE ASSOCIATION, Plaintiff,v.John NITTOLI, et al., Defendants,Ludlum Corp. Profit Sharing Plan and Trust, Defendant-Respondent,James Pi, et al., Non-Party Appellants.
May 12, 1998.
Andrew Morganstern, for defendant-respondent.
Kenneth Kirschenbaum, for non-party appellants.
*427 Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Beverly Cohen, J.), entered September 30, 1997, which denied appellants successful bidders' motion to set aside a foreclosure sale and compel return of their downpayment deposited with the Referee, unanimously affirmed, with costs.
Sale of the premises subject to unpaid taxes and assessments was not a violation of RPAPL 1354(2) since the judgment of foreclosure so provided. Even if it were such a violation, appellants had notice of such condition and therefore cannot claim prejudice (RPAPL 231[6]; cf., Aaron v. Kent, 182 A.D.2d 960, 581 N.Y.S.2d 933). Nor should the sale be set aside because of the continued occupancy of the mortgagor, whose right of possession continues until delivery of the Referee's deed (see, Central Hanover Bank & Trust Co. v. Boccia, 244 App.Div. 106, 112, 278 N.Y.S. 737). We have considered appellants' remaining arguments and find them to be without merit.
MILONAS, J.P., and WALLACH, RUBIN, MAZZARELLI and SAXE, JJ., concur.
671 N.Y.S.2d 657 (Mem), 250 A.D.2d 427, 1998 N.Y. Slip Op. 04780
END OF DOCUMENT