From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

G.C.M. Corporation v. 382 Van Duzer Corp.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Apr 6, 1998
249 A.D.2d 264 (N.Y. App. Div. 1998)

Opinion

April 6, 1998

Appeal from the Supreme Court, Richmond County (Leone, J.).


Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

The appellant is a tenant in a building which was foreclosed upon by the plaintiff. The appellant seeks, inter alia, to have the judgment of foreclosure and sale vacated on the ground that the plaintiff failed to serve him with the complaint in the foreclosure action. However, the plaintiff's failure to serve the appellant does not nullify the judgment of foreclosure and sale (see, Nationwide Assocs. v. Brunne, 216 A.D.2d 547; 585 A.P. Lenox Assocs. v. V.O.C. Check Cashing Co., 194 A.D.2d 380; In re Comcoach Corp., 698 F.2d 571; Markantonis v. Madlan Realty Corp., 262 N.Y. 354).

The appellant's remaining contention is without merit (see, RPAPL 231).

Rosenblatt, J.P., Ritter, Sullivan and Goldstein, JJ., concur.


Summaries of

G.C.M. Corporation v. 382 Van Duzer Corp.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Apr 6, 1998
249 A.D.2d 264 (N.Y. App. Div. 1998)
Case details for

G.C.M. Corporation v. 382 Van Duzer Corp.

Case Details

Full title:G.C.M. CORPORATION, Respondent, v. 382 VAN DUZER CORP. et al., Defendants…

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

Date published: Apr 6, 1998

Citations

249 A.D.2d 264 (N.Y. App. Div. 1998)
671 N.Y.S.2d 285

Citing Cases

Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. v. Mazzara

Indeed, the affidavit submitted by Frank Mazzara did not even affirmatively assert that he was residing at…

ROSSROCK 2005 FUND LLC v. ESTATE OF SHUI KING WONG

As to Mr. McGown's assertion that the mortgage and note are "non-enforceable" via [the] Statute of…