TaiLexi AI U.S. Case Law

Home Federal Savings & Loan Ass'n v. Four Star Heights

Home Federal Savings and Loan Association v. Four Star Heights, and Francis Scaringi, Jr., (Action No. 1.) Home Federal Savings and Loan Association v. Four Star Heights, and Francis Scaringi, Jr., (Action No. 2.) Home Federal Savings and Loan Association v. Four Star Heights, and Elizabeth Pfister, (Action No. 3.)

Home Fed. Sav. & Loan Ass'n v. Four Star Heights, 56 A.D.2d 909 (1977)
Download
Format
Include

Star paging (*137) is kept for pin cites.

Court
Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · State Appellate Courts
Decided
March 28, 1977
Citations
56 A.D.2d 909392 N.Y.S.2d 8431977 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 11311

Opinion of the Court

Text extracted by OCR from a scanned original; check the original for exact wording.

In three separate surplus money proceedings involving three different properties, defendants Francis Scaringi, Jr., and Elizabeth Pfister appeal from so much of each of three orders of the Supreme Court, Kings County (one in each proceeding), each dated August 27, 1976, as, after hearings in connection with motions to confirm Referees’ reports, declared the respective mortgages on which they are mortgagees to be void and denied them the right to participate in any surplus moneys. *910 Orders reversed insofar as appealed from, on the law, and proceedings remanded to Special Term for a de novo hearing and a new determination, with costs to abide the event. Special Term’s telephone conversation with the missing witness, whose testimony on the issues (as correctly stated by the court) "would have shed considerable light”, wherein the caller stated that he would not testify because there had been threats made against his life, was egregiously prejudicial to appellants, especially since Special Term’s findings were based, in large part, on its belief in the lack of credibility of appellants. The interests of justice require a hearing de novo. Hargett, Acting P. J., Shapiro, Titone and O’Connor, JJ., concur.

How later courts describe this case

No later court has written an explanatory parenthetical about this case yet.

Cited by 0 cases

No case in this database cites this case.

Authorities cited 0

No citations to other opinions in this database were found.

Keyboard shortcuts

/Focus the search box
j kNext / previous result
EnterOpen the selected result
xAdd / remove the selected result from the download list
n pNext / previous search term in a case
cCopy the citation of the current case
+ −Larger / smaller reading text
?Show this list