Legal Opinion

Bank of New York v. Midland Avenue Development Co.

New York Supreme Court

Decided January 8, 1997PublishedCited by 1 opinion

1Opinion of the Court

OPINION OF THE COURT

James R. Cowhey, J.

Motion by plaintiff to serve a second amended complaint.

This motion is disposed of as follows: Since this foreclosure action has been rendered moot by the judgment rendered on May 2, 1996 (Rudolph, J.) for the City of Rye in its tax foreclosure action of the same property, plaintiff’s application to convert this foreclosure action into an action at law to recover on the note by amending the foreclosure complaint and filing a second amended complaint is denied as plaintiff’s sole recourse is to commence a separate action on the note (European Am. Bank v…

2Cases cited2 opinions

  1. W.I.L.D. W.A.T.E.R.S., Ltd. v. MartinezAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1989
  2. European American Bank v. Perspective Development Corp.Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1995

3Cited by1 opinion

  1. Bank of New York v. Midland Avenue Development Co.Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1998

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

Powered by the Exa API