AMICUS AI
Citation Codes
Equivalent Citations
citation codes
Attorney(S)
Judges
Are you a practicing lawyer?
Enhance your digital presence and reach by creating a Casemine profile.
Upload pleading to use the new AI search
Cites
Cited by
Citation Codes
Equivalent Citations
citation codes
Attorney(S)
Judges

EILEEN GOUDGE ZUCKERMAN, Plaintiff-Respondent, v. 234-6 W. 22 ST. CORP., Defendant-Appellant, DAVID ROSENBERG and GERALD B. SWARTZ, et al., Defendants.

The post-foreclosure supplemental judgment appealed from does not bring up for review, pursuant to CPLR 5501 (a), the final judgment of foreclosure and sale, or the order granting summary judgment to plaintiff. Even assuming that defendant had the right to seek review of the issues determined in the final judgment of foreclosure, the points defendant now raises challenging the validity of the foreclosure are without merit (see, e.g., City of New York v. Zuckerman, 234 A.D.2d 160, lv dismissed 90 N.Y.2d 845). In particular, the action was not time-barred because the automatic stay of 11 U.S.C. § 362 tolled the limitations period for this foreclosure action (see, CPLR 204[a]).

THIS CONSTITUTES THE DECISION AND ORDER OF SUPREME COURT, APPELLATE DIVISION, FIRST DEPARTMENT.

Use AI to get other relevant cases.

Comments

ZUCKERMAN v. 234-6 W. 22 ST. CORP
(Dec 16, 1999)