Criterion Capital Corp. v. Valven Holding Corp., 23 A.D.2d 878 (N.Y. App. Div. 1965). · Go Syfert
Criterion Capital Corp. v. Valven Holding Corp., 23 A.D.2d 878 (N.Y. App. Div. 1965). Cases Citing This Book View Copy Cite
4 citation events across 2 distinct courts.
Strongest positive: CME Group, Ltd. v. Cellini (nysupct, 1997-07-02)
Top citers, strongest first. 1 distinct citer. How cited ↗
discussed Cited "see" CME Group, Ltd. v. Cellini
N.Y. Sup. Ct. · 1997 · signal: see · confidence high
Assocs., 193 AD2d 1091 [4th Dept 1993], lv denied 82 NY2d 656 [1993]; see, Criterion Capital Corp. v Valven Holding Corp., 23 AD2d 878 [2d Dept 1965], lv dismissed 16 NY2d 482 [1965]; also see, Schnall v Sayville Manor & Beach Club, 12 Misc 2d 274 [Sup Ct, Suffolk County 1958] [failure to post in town where property located not ground to vacate sale].) While it has been said that size and circulation of a proper newspaper, within the meaning of RPAPL 231 (2) (a), is not relevant (Guardian Fed.
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
Criterion Capital Corp.
v.
Valven Holding Corporation, , and Lawrence Fisher
Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York.
May 17, 1965.
23 A.D.2d 878
1965 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4169
Published

In an action to foreclose a mortgage on real property, in which a judgment of foreclosure and sale had been entered, the defendants Valven Holding Corporation, Scarsdale Lanes, Inc., and Robert L. Crawley (the owners) appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Westchester County, entered February 10, 1965, which denied their motion to vacate a sale of the mortgaged premises held January 7, 1965 pursuant to said judgment. Order affirmed, with $10 costs and disbursements to the respondent Fisher, payable by appellants. The judgment of foreclosure and sale in the instant action was signed November 13,1964. The sale which was originally scheduled for December 23, 1964, was adjourned to January 6, 1965, with due notice published of the original sale and of the postponement. On January 6, 1965, the Referee appointed to sell failed to appear because of illness. His representative announced an adjournment of the sale to the following day, January 7, 1965; and after a conference held before the Justice at Special Term, an order adjourning the sale to January 7, 1965 was signed on consent. The sale was held on that day. Assuming that there should have been publication of the date of the adjourned sale, it is our opinion that the omission so to publish was merely an irregularity which may be the basis for setting aside the sale only if the substantial rights of a party are prejudiced by the defect (CPLR 2003). However, there was no such prejudice shown. Indeed, it appears that the Referee who conducted the sale “ received about 14 bids ” for the property and that there was much spirited bidding. Under the circumstances, the motion to set aside the sale was properly denied. Beldock, P. J., Christ, Brennan, Rabin and Benjamin, JJ., concur.