ARS Investors II 2012-1 HVB, LLC v. Black-Meadow Road LLC

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

ARS Investors II 2012-1 HVB, LLC v. Black-Meadow Road LLC

2016 NY Slip Op 8436, 145 A.D.3d 543, 41 N.Y.S.3d 892

CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York

DecidedDecember 15, 2016

Docket2211 380686/11

StatusPublished

This text of 2016 NY Slip Op 8436 (ARS Investors II 2012-1 HVB, LLC v. Black-Meadow Road LLC) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

ARS Investors II 2012-1 HVB, LLC v. Black-Meadow Road LLC, 2016 NY Slip Op 8436, 145 A.D.3d 543, 41 N.Y.S.3d 892 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2016).

Pincite

Opinion

*544 Deficiency judgment, Supreme Court, Bronx County (Howard H. Sherman, J.), entered August 14, 2015, confirming and ratifying a referee’s report of the sale of the mortgaged premises, dated March 19, 2014, and awarding plaintiff a sum of money, unanimously affirmed, with costs.

Plaintiff established prima facie through its expert’s appraisal “the fair and reasonable market value of the mortgaged premises” (RPAPL 1371 [2]; see White Knight NYC Ventures, LLC v 15 W. 17th St, LLC, 110 AD3d 576 [1st Dept 2013]). Defendants failed to establish that the highest and best use of the property was something other than the existing use, on which plaintiff’s expert based his appraisal (see National Bank of N. Am. v Systems Home Improvement, 69 AD2d 557, 562-563 [2d Dept 1979], affd 50 NY2d 814 [1980]; BTC Mtge. Invs. Trust 1997-SI v Altamont Farms, 284 AD2d 849 [3d Dept 2001]). Defendants’ expert did not show that it was “reasonably probable that the asserted highest and best use could or would have been made of the subject property in the near future” (see National Bank of N. Am., 69 AD2d at 563). The trial court appropriately rejected defendants’ expert’s testimony as being speculative and devoid of factual foundation support (see BTC Mtge. Invs. Trust 1997-SI at 850).

Concur—Mazzarelli, J.P., Andrias, Saxe, Feinman and Gische, JJ.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

*544 Deficiency judgment, Supreme Court, Bronx County (Howard H. Sherman, J.), entered August 14, 2015, confirming and ratifying a referee’s report of the sale of the mortgaged premises, dated March 19, 2014, and awarding plaintiff a sum of money, unanimously affirmed, with costs.

Plaintiff established prima facie through its expert’s appraisal “the fair and reasonable market value of the mortgaged premises” (RPAPL 1371 [2]; see White Knight NYC Ventures, LLC v 15 W. 17th St, LLC, 110 AD3d 576 [1st Dept 2013]). Defendants failed to establish that the highest and best use of the property was something other than the existing use, on which plaintiff’s expert based his appraisal (see National Bank of N. Am. v Systems Home Improvement, 69 AD2d 557, 562-563 [2d Dept 1979], affd 50 NY2d 814 [1980]; BTC Mtge. Invs. Trust 1997-SI v Altamont Farms, 284 AD2d 849 [3d Dept 2001]). Defendants’ expert did not show that it was “reasonably probable that the asserted highest and best use could or would have been made of the subject property in the near future” (see National Bank of N. Am., 69 AD2d at 563). The trial court appropriately rejected defendants’ expert’s testimony as being speculative and devoid of factual foundation support (see BTC Mtge. Invs. Trust 1997-SI at 850).

Concur—Mazzarelli, J.P., Andrias, Saxe, Feinman and Gische, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

2016 NY Slip Op 8436, 145 A.D.3d 543, 41 N.Y.S.3d 892, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/ars-investors-ii-2012-1-hvb-llc-v-black-meadow-road-llc-nyappdiv-2016.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack