Legal Opinion
Leader Federal Bank for Savings v. Van Tienhoven
Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York
Decided June 18, 1999PublishedCited by 4 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
—Order unanimously reversed on the law with costs, plaintiffs motion denied, defendants’ motion granted in. part and foreclosure sale vacated. Memorandum: Supreme Court erred in granting plaintiffs motion for a writ of assistance and in denying that part of the motion of Andrew Van Tienhoven and Betty Lou Van Tienhoven (defendants) seeking to set aside the foreclosure sale of property located on Clear-view Drive in the Town of Clay. The letter sent by defendants’ counsel to plaintiff after service of the summons and complaint constitutes a notice of appearance (see, Parrotta v Wolgin, 245…
2Cases cited6 opinions
- Cohen v. RyanAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1970
- Parrotta v. WolginAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1997
- Fleet Finance, Inc. v. NielsenAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1996
- Pol-Tek Industries Ltd. v. PanzarellaAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1996
- Aetna Life Insurance v. Avalon Orchards, Inc.Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1984
1 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by4 opinions
- Paulus v. Christopher Vacirca, Inc.Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 2015
- 38-12 Astoria Blvd., LLC v. RamosAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 2022
- NYCTL 1998-2 Trust v. Chinese Am. Trading Co., Inc.Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 2020
- Dime Savings Bank of New York, FSB v. HignerAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 2001