Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1983

GIT Industries, Inc. v. Rose

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York · Decided May 9, 1983

94 A.D.2d 714; 462 N.Y.S.2d 245; 1983 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 18155

Cases that cite this one

9 later published cases cite this decision.

Bank Leumi Trust Co. v. Andrews (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 1998)
Recoll Management Corp. v. Quadrini (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 1998)
Sirota v. Langtry (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 1996)
P. T. Bank Central Asia v. Wide Motion Corp. (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 1996)
Bank Leumi Trust Co. v. Mari-Age Bridals, Inc. (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 1995)
Brenner v. Alroy (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 1991)
Alan v. Rose and Christina Rose v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue (2d Cir. 1988)
Rose v. Commissioner (United States Tax Court 1987)
TBS Enterprises Inc. v. Grobe (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 1985)

This list shows which later cases cite this one. It does not say how they treated it, and no review of that has been done. Not a substitute for Shepard’s or KeyCite — verify before relying.

Opinion of the Court

— In an action, inter alia, to recover damages for breach of an agreement to pay the deficiency between the proceeds of a foreclosure sale and a mortgage debt, defendant appeals from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Suffolk County (Geiler, J.), entered July 2, 1982, which, inter alia, is in favor of plaintiff in the principal sum of $466,124.01, after a nonjury trial. Judgment modified, on the law, by reducing the sum thereof to $463,624.01. As so modified, judgment affirmed, with costs, and the matter remitted to the Supreme Court, Suffolk County, for entry of an appropriate amended judgment. Following summary judgment awarded in favor of defendant, this court reinstated the complaint and held that a trial was necessary to determine, among other things, whether the repurchase *715provisions of the agreement of September 12,1977 constituted an independent loan separate and distinct from the mortgage debt (GIT Inds. v Rose, 81 AD2d 656, app dsmd 54 NY2d 752). Based on the evidence introduced at trial, we now conclude that there was in fact an independent loan from plaintiff to defendant, with the mortgage debt pledged as security. Accordingly, plaintiff was not limited to moving for a deficiency judgment pursuant to RPAPL 1371, and was not barred from maintaining this separate action by RPAPL 1301. However, the trial court erred by awarding the sum of $2,500 to plaintiff for legal fees. The agreement of September 12, 1977 expressly limits the amount of legal fees recoverable by plaintiff to those incurred in connection with the foreclosure action brought pursuant thereto. Mollen, P. J., Gulotta, O’Connor and Rubin, JJ., concur.

Case-law data current through September 30, 2026. Source: CourtListener bulk data.