New York Court of Appeals, 1978

Amsterdam Savings Bank v. City View Management Corp.

New York Court of Appeals · Decided October 19, 1978

45 N.Y.2d 854; 382 N.E.2d 1150; 410 N.Y.S.2d 287; 1978 N.Y. LEXIS 2282

Cases that cite this one

40 later published cases cite this decision. The 25 that cite it most often are listed here.

United States Ex Rel. LaSalle v. Smith (District Court, E.D. New York 1986)
People v. Lopez-Mendoza (N.Y. 2019)
People v. Smith (N.Y. 2017)
Powers v. Lord (District Court, W.D. New York 2006)
David Sweet v. Floyd Bennett, Superintendent of Elmira Correctional Institution (2d Cir. 2003)
Hudson City Sav. Bank v. Hossain (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2020)
People v. Sposito (N.Y. 2018)
People v. Campbell (N.Y. 2017)
Bruno v. Superintendent, Five Points Correctional Facility (2d Cir. 2016)
Pierotti v. Walsh (2d Cir. 2016)
Fulton v. Graham (2d Cir. 2015)
Contant v. Sabol (District Court, S.D. New York 2013)
Daryl Graham v. Leonard Portuondo (2d Cir. 2011)
San Filippo v. Hobbs (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2011)
Rosario v. Ercole (District Court, S.D. New York 2008)
Nunez v. Conway (District Court, S.D. New York 2007)
Chase Manhattan Mortgage Corp. v. Anatian (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2005)
Marivel G. v. Marcus D. (Queens Family Court 2005)
Fleming v. Giuliani (N.Y. 2004)
Lopez v. Greiner (District Court, S.D. New York 2004)
Tirelli v. Bicknell (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York 2003)
Holland v. Irvin (2d Cir. 2002)
Otero v. Stinson (District Court, S.D. New York 1999)
Frazier v. Kelly (District Court, W.D. New York 1999)
Ryan v. Mann (District Court, E.D. New York 1998)

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

OPINION OF THE COURT

Memorandum.

Order of the Appellate Division affirmed, without costs. Submission by respondents of material outside the record and discussion in respondents’ brief of such material have been disregarded. Because of the inclusion of the offending material costs are not awarded.

Intervenor-appellant was not, as respondent banks argue, just any member of the public, but a serious bidder who had made various commitments to effectuate its bid. In addition, as an alleged assignee it had an equitable ownership interest in the property resulting from a contract of sale made with mortgagor, defendant in this foreclosure proceeding (cf. Flickinger v Glass, 222 NY 404, 409-410). Nevertheless, it is unnecessary to consider whether intervenor has standing to attack the foreclosure sale, because on any view its contentions must fail because of laches. The three-month delay in taking action after having learned within minutes of the irregularity in the foreclosure proceeding was inexcusable, and caused a substantial change in position by respondents, who had contracted to resell the property to third parties. This combination of inex*856cusable delay and detriment to other parties requires application of the doctrine of laches (see, e.g., Black v Black, 22 AD2d 673). While this is a matter generally left to the discretion of the courts below, which did not expressly pass on the laches question, in this case the record requires application of the laches doctrine as a matter of law.

Chief Judge Breitel and Judges Jasen, Gabrielli, Jones, Wachtler, Fuchsberg and Cooke concur in memorandum.

Order affirmed.

Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.