Legal Opinion

Crossland Federal Savings Bank v. Pekofsky

New York Supreme Court

Decided January 30, 1995Published

1Opinion of the Court

OPINION OF THE COURT

Kenneth W. Rudolph, J.

Motion by defendants Pekofsky to vacate appointment of receiver and cross motion of receiver to compel defendants Pekofsky to turn over funds are determined as follows.

Defendants Hilda Pekofsky, individually, and Hilda Pekofsky and Nathan A. Pekofsky, trustees, as mortgagors, executed and delivered a mortgage consolidation, modification and extension agreement dated July 18, 1988 to Crossland Federal Savings Bank, plaintiff mortgagee.

The mortgage instrument, securing a loan of $4,000,000 on premises designated as A & H Mall, 250 West Route 59, Nanuet,…

2Cases cited2 opinions

  1. Norstar Bank v. MorabitoAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1994
  2. 570 Kosciusko Realty Corp. v. Kingdale Estates, Inc.Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1939

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API