Dime Savings Bank v. Ron

Full title: DIME SAVINGS BANK OF NEW YORK, Respondent, v. ANITA RON, Appellant

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

Date published: Oct 31, 1994

208 A.D.2d 888 (N.Y. App. Div. 1994)

617 N.Y.S.2d 901

Opinion

October 31, 1994

Appeal from the Supreme Court, Queens County (Lane, J.).

Ordered that the order and judgment is affirmed, with costs.

Since the plaintiff's original motion for a deficiency judgment pursuant to RPAPL 1371 was properly and timely made, we reject the defendant's contention that the instant application is untimely pursuant to RPAPL 1371 (2). The plaintiff's original motion was denied because the plaintiff was unable to obtain a full appraisal of the subject premises. Specifically, the defendant's tenant would not permit access to the premises, thus necessitating the plaintiff's subsequent motions for renewal with the proper proof. Under these circumstances we cannot find that the instant motion for renewal was untimely (cf., Voss v Multifilm Corp., 112 A.D.2d 216; Mortgagee Affiliates Corp. v Jerder Realty Servs., 62 A.D.2d 591). Thompson, J.P., Miller, O'Brien, Santucci and Joy, JJ., concur.