property to be sufficient for injury-in-fact standing purposes. Indeed, the value of plaintiffs interest in the property, while stipulated for the purposes of this motion not to have been negatively affected since the date of purchase, will inevitably be affected by the continuing contamination that is alleged. Moreover, plaintiff will at the end of foreclosure proceedings either hold title to the property or realize the proceeds of the sale. Thus, plaintiff has a distinct economic as well as legal interest in the condition and value of the property-enough to provide it with standing to sue for cleanup of the contamination. The case that defendants cite, Alloy Briquet-ting, does not hold otherwise. See Alloy Briquetting Corp. v. Niagara Vest, Inc., 756 F.Supp. 713 (W.D.N.Y.1991) (<HOLDING>). Moreover, as Friends of the Earth, Inc. v.
holding that an unconstitutional act of congress has no legal effect holding a party has no standing to appeal unless he or she is an aggrieved party an individual who is not a parent in the eyes of the law has no legal interest in the child and therefore has no standing to appeal holding that an evicted plaintiff has no legal interest in property and therefore has no standing to bring a cercla claim holding that a void decree has no legal effect holding that prevailing party has no standing to appeal