Kaufman v. Levey

3 Citing cases

  1. Key Bank National Association v. Stern

    14 A.D.3d 656 (N.Y. App. Div. 2005)   Cited 13 times

    Moreover, the Supreme Court properly granted the plaintiff's motion to amend the notice of pendency, judgment of foreclosure and sale, and all other documents in the action, nunc pro tunc, to correct a minor typographical error in the legal description of the foreclosed property ( see Pacific Lime v. Lowenberg Corp., 77 AD2d 737; Kaufman v. Levey, 142 Misc 243; 1 Bergman, New York Mortgage Foreclosures § 15.02).

  2. LGD Associates v. Hastingwood Trading, Ltd.

    220 A.D.2d 350 (N.Y. App. Div. 1995)   Cited 3 times

    Appeal from the Supreme Court, New York County (Herman Cahn, J.). Plaintiff was properly allowed to amend the subject notice of pendency in order to correct minor defects caused by the transposition of block and lot numbers ( see, Mechanics Exch. Sav. Bank v. Chesterfield, 34 A.D.2d 111, 114; Kaufman v. Levey, 142 Misc. 243). The instant minor amendment does not conflict with the intent of CPLR article 65.

  3. Marine Midland Bank v. Highgate Hall of Orange County, Inc.

    92 Misc. 2d 865 (N.Y. Sup. Ct. 1977)   Cited 1 times

    By order of another Justice of the court, dated May 5, 1977, a lis pendens previously filed on April 18, 1977 had been amended nunc pro tunc to that date to include Contractors as a party defendant. Contractors contests the court's jurisdiction to make such nunc pro tunc amendment of the lis pendens (see Van Tuyl v New York Real Estate Security Co., 153 App. Div. 409, affd 207 N.Y. 691; 13 Carmody-Wait 2d, N Y Prac, §§ 87:36-87:37, pp 495-496; but, see, Kaufman v Levey, 142 Misc. 243) and