Mack Fin. Corp. v. Knoud, 98 A.D.2d 713 (N.Y. App. Div. 2d Dep't 1983). · Go Syfert
Search
Mack Fin. Corp. v. Knoud, 98 A.D.2d 713 (N.Y. App. Div. 2d Dep't 1983). Cases Citing This Book View Copy Cite
18 citation events (6 in the last 25 years) across 4 distinct courts.
Strongest positive: Ally Fin. Inc. v. Jonathan, 187 A.D.3d 1633 (N.Y. App. Div. 4th Dep't 2020)
How cited ↗
Cited for
469 N.Y.S.2d at 117 cited at this page1 citing case
  • Van Dorn Retail Mgmt., Inc. v. Jim's Oxford Shop, Inc., 874 F. Supp. 476 (D.N.H. 1994).published
    Corp. v. Knoud, 98 A.D.2d 713 , 469 N.Y.S.2d 116, 117 (2d Dep’t 1983); Kohler v. Ford Motor Credit Co., Inc., 93 A.D.2d *484 205, 462 N.Y.S.2d 297, 299 (3d Dep’t 1983); General Elec.
At page 713 � In an action for a deficiency judgment, defendant appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Suffolk County (Rohl, J.), dated December 20,1982, which…1 citing caseopening of page *713 (no citing court says what it cites this page for)
  • Coxall v. Clover Com. Corp., 4 Misc. 3d 654 (N.Y. City Civ. Ct. 2004).published
    Corp. v Knoud, 98 AD2d 713, 713-714 [2d Dept 1983].) “Whether a sale was commercially reasonable is, like other questions about ‘reasonableness’, a fact-intensive inquiry; no magic set of procedures will immunize a sale from scrutiny.” (Ma…
At page 714 burden of showing that the sale was made in a “commercially reasonable” manner (see Uniform Commercial Code, § 9-504; Central Budget Corp. v Garrett, 48 AD2d…1 citing caseopening of page *714 (no citing court says what it cites this page for)
  • Ally Fin. Inc. v. Jonathan, 187 A.D.3d 1633 (N.Y. App. Div. 4th Dep't 2020).published
    Corp. v Knoud , 98 AD2d 713, 714 [2d Dept 1983]).
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
Mack Financial Corporation
v.
James Knoud
Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York.
Dec 5, 1983.
Published opinion
98 A.D.2d 713
1983 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 21016
Cited by 14 opinions  |  Published

— In an action for a deficiency judgment, defendant appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Suffolk County (Rohl, J.), dated December 20,1982, which granted plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment in lieu of a complaint (CPLR 3213) and set the matter down for trial on the issue of damages. Order reversed, on the law, with costs, and motion denied. A secured party seeking a deficiency judgment from the debtor after sale of the collateral bears the[*714] burden of showing that the sale was made in a “commercially reasonable” manner (see Uniform Commercial Code, § 9-504; Central Budget Corp. v Garrett, 48 AD2d 825). Here, the moving papers fail to set forth any of the facts and circumstances surrounding the sale, and have therefore failed to satisfy a prerequisite to obtaining a deficiency judgment (see Central Budget Corp. v Garrett, supra). Hence, summary judgment was improvidently granted. Lazer, J. P., Mangano, Bracken and Niehoff, JJ., concur.