From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Le Vine v. Flynn

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Sep 16, 1996
231 A.D.2d 555 (N.Y. App. Div. 1996)

Opinion

September 16, 1996.

In an action to foreclose a mortgage, the defendants Sandra Flynn and Herbert Lindo appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Nassau County (Collins, J.), dated October 26, 1995, which, inter alia, granted the plaintiffs motion for summary judgment and appointed a Referee to ascertain and compute the amount due.

Before: Bracken, J.P., Krausman, Goldstein and Luciano, JJ.


Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

The appellants specifically waived the defense of usury in a "stipulation and order", "so ordered" by the court, which settled a prior action to foreclose the mortgage in issue here. Accordingly, the appellants were precluded from raising usury in the instant action ( see, Central Funding Co. v Deglin, 67 AD2d 673, affd in part, appeal dismissed in part 48 NY2d 964; see also, Daniel v Daniel, 224 AD2d 573). The appellants' remaining contentions are without merit.


Summaries of

Le Vine v. Flynn

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Sep 16, 1996
231 A.D.2d 555 (N.Y. App. Div. 1996)
Case details for

Le Vine v. Flynn

Case Details

Full title:SAUL S. LE VINE, Respondent, v. SANDRA FLYNN et al., Appellants, et al.…

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

Date published: Sep 16, 1996

Citations

231 A.D.2d 555 (N.Y. App. Div. 1996)
647 N.Y.S.2d 105

Citing Cases

Feldman v. Torres

erpose any defense (other than payment), counterclaim or set-off in any action brought by the HOLDER of this…

Concrete Capital, LLC v. Olympic Prop. Partners, LLC

A usury savings clause "does not make the subject note nonusurious" (Bakhash, 134 AD3d at 469). Regarding…