Learn About the Law
Get help with your legal needs
FindLaw’s Learn About the Law features thousands of informational articles to help you understand your options. And if you’re ready to hire an attorney, find one in your area who can help.
CITIBANK, N.A., Respondent, v. Milly STEFANSKY, et al., Defendants, Erica Winzelberg, et al., Appellants.
In an action to foreclose a mortgage upon real property, the defendants Erica Winzelberg, Martin Ungar, and Suzy Menczer appeal (1), as limited by their brief, from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Barasch, J.), dated February 18, 1997, as (a) granted the plaintiff's motion to serve the defendants Milly Stefansky, Eli Stefansky, and Martin Ungar by publication, and (b) denied the cross motion of the defendants Erica Winzelberg and Suzy Menczer for the appointment of a lip-reading interpreter for Suzy Menczer, and (2) from an order of the same court, dated June 5, 1997, which denied the motion of the defendants Martin Ungar, Erica Winzelberg, and Suzy Menczer, inter alia, to dismiss the action insofar as asserted against them and to vacate the order dated February 18, 1997.
ORDERED that the appeal from so much of the order dated February 18, 1997, as granted the plaintiff's motion to serve the defendants Milly Stefansky and Eli Stefansky by publication is dismissed, without costs or disbursements, as the appellants are not aggrieved thereby; and it is further,
ORDERED that the appeal by Martin Ungar from so much of the order dated February 18, 1997, as denied the cross motion of the defendants Erica Winzelberg and Suzy Menczer is dismissed, without costs or disbursements, as he is not aggrieved thereby; and it is further,
ORDERED that the order dated February 18, 1997, is affirmed insofar as reviewed, without costs or disbursements, and it is further,
ORDERED that the order dated June 5, 1997, is affirmed, without costs or disbursements.
Contrary to the appellants' contention, the court properly granted the plaintiff leave to serve Martin Ungar by publication inasmuch as the plaintiff sufficiently demonstrated that service could not be made by another prescribed method with due diligence (see, CPLR 315).
The appellants' remaining contentions are without merit.
MEMORANDUM BY THE COURT.
Thank you for your feedback!
A free source of state and federal court opinions, state laws, and the United States Code. For more information about the legal concepts addressed by these cases and statutes visit FindLaw's Learn About the Law.
Decided: November 30, 1998
Court: Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Second Department, New York.
Search our directory by legal issue
Enter information in one or both fields (Required)
Harness the power of our directory with your own profile. Select the button below to sign up.
Learn more about FindLaw’s newsletters, including our terms of use and privacy policy.
Get help with your legal needs
FindLaw’s Learn About the Law features thousands of informational articles to help you understand your options. And if you’re ready to hire an attorney, find one in your area who can help.
Search our directory by legal issue
Enter information in one or both fields (Required)