Legal Opinion
Brandt v. 47-49 Charles Street, Inc.
New York Supreme Court
Decided March 17, 1993Published
1Opinion of the Court
OPINION OF THE COURT
Stanley L. Sklar, J.
Is a mortgage foreclosure action subject to dismissal because *300the mortgagee, who is also a tenant in the mortgaged premises, has failed to name himself as a defendant pursuant to RPAPL 1311? This court declines to dismiss the action.
In this action commenced by mortgagee Arthur Brandt, M.D., defendant mortgagors, 47-49 Charles St., Inc. and Joseph Fischer, move for leave to extend the time to appear and respond to the complaint, to dismiss this action as to them on the ground that they were improperly served with process, and to dismiss the action…
2Cases cited6 opinions
- Tuthill v. . TracyNew York Court of Appeals · 1865
- G. B. Seely's Son, Inc. v. Fulton-Edison, Inc.Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1976
- Flushing Savings Bank v. CCN Realty Corp.Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1980
- Dime Savings Bank v. JohneasAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1991
- C. G. Swackhamer, Inc. v. P. F. L. Construction Corp.Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1955
1 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.