of our firm! For more information regarding this case, please contact Deborah Gallo, Director of Operations at. Thus, they were not entitled to a share in the surplus.Ī great job by Richard O’Brien, Esq. They obtained no interest in the property from Vargas until after the foreclosure sale – when Nadia Vargas’ interest was already extinguished. As to the surplus, the movant had no judgment or lien against the property. Movant was charged with notice of the entered Judgment of foreclosure and sale and failed to provide reasonable excuse for failing to appear. The order to show cause to renew the earlier decision was also denied. The Court found that movant filed to oppose the earlier motion and the arguments were not previously before the Court – thus the Motion to Reargue was denied. The movant alleged that it purchased the property between the commencement and the foreclosure occurred and thus that it had the equity of redemption. Thereafter, a nonparty appeared for the first time and filed a motion on Septemfor distribution of surplus funds. The order to show cause to renew/reargue and vacate the Court’s prior order was denied and motion by third party for distribution of the surplus funds was also denied.īy decision dated Septemthe Court granted defendant Wilmington’s motion to confirm the referee’s report and direct disbursement of the surplus monies.
Nadia Vargas, et al Index 3289/2015, Queens County decided June 28, 2019. In NYCTL 2014-A TRUST, and the Bank of New York As collateral Agent and Custodian for NYCTL 2014-A Trust v. We are pleased to share a recent decision of a case handled by Friedman Vartolo, LLP.
0 kommentar(er)
