Legal Opinion
Federal Deposit Insurance v. Forte
New York Supreme Court
Decided June 12, 1981PublishedCited by 4 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
OPINION OF THE COURT
Bernard F. McCaffrey, J.
The threshold question to be determined on this motion for a deficiency judgment is — do the provisions of RPAPL 1371 apply to the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (FDIC) in its capacity as the liquidator-assignee of the obligations of an insolvent bank?
There appears to be little or no Federal or State law directly on this point. The court must, therefore, at the outset determine whether Federal or State law applies.
In this real estate foreclosure action, plaintiff obtained a judgment to foreclose a mortgage with respect to real property in…
2Cases cited9 opinions
- D'Oench, Duhme & Co. v. Federal Deposit InsuranceSupreme Court of the United States · 1942
- Riverside Park Realty Co. v. Federal Deposit InsuranceDistrict Court, M.D. Tennessee · 1978
- Federal Deposit Ins. Corp. v. RockelmanDistrict Court, E.D. Wisconsin · 1978
- Federal Deposit Insurance v. First Mortgage InvestorsDistrict Court, E.D. Wisconsin · 1980
- DeLorenzo v. Federal Deposit Insurance CorporationDistrict Court, S.D. New York · 1966
4 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by4 opinions
- United States v. FreidusDistrict Court, S.D. New York · 1991
- Gallant v. Kanterman (In Re Kanterman)United States Bankruptcy Court, S.D. New York · 1989
- Federal Deposit Insurance v. ForteAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1988
- Federal Deposit Ins. Corp. v. FisherDistrict Court, D. Minnesota · 1989