Legal Opinion
Monthar, Inc. v. Haralambides
New York Supreme Court
Decided February 21, 1968PublishedCited by 4 opinions
1Opinion of the CourtRichard D. Simons, J.
The defendants move for an order vacating and setting aside a mortgage foreclosure sale. It is claimed that at the time of the sale, the attorney for the plaintiff improperly announced to the assembled bidders that a mortgage prior to the one being foreclosed was in default and subject to call or foreclosure. Defendants claim that as a result, an inadequate price was received for the property.
The general principles for vacating a judicial sale on equitable grounds are set forth in Fisher v. Hersey (78 N. Y. 387). The court has wide discretion to grant relief where there has been fraud,…
2Cases cited6 opinions
- Fisher v. . HerseyNew York Court of Appeals · 1879
- Mullins v. FranzAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1914
- Housman v. WrightAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1900
- State Realty & Mortgage Co. v. VillaumeAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1907
- Moller v. WattsAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1900
1 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by4 opinions
- Polish National Alliance of Brooklyn, U.S.A. v. White Eagle Hall Co.Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1983
- Wandschneider v. BekenyNew York Supreme Court · 1973
- Southold Savings Bank v. GilliganNew York Supreme Court · 1973
- Hyde v. HydeNew York City Family Court · 1976