Home/Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York/Bank of New York v. Anthonisen

Bank of New York v. Anthonisen

281 A.D.2d 442, 721 N.Y.S.2d 554, 2001 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 2391
CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York
DecidedMarch 12, 2001
StatusPublished

This text of 281 A.D.2d 442 (Bank of New York v. Anthonisen) 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
Bank of New York v. Anthonisen, 281 A.D.2d 442, 721 N.Y.S.2d 554, 2001 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 2391 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2001).

Opinion

—In an action to foreclose a mortgage, the defendant Arthur Anthonisen, a/k/a Arthur C. Anthonisen, appeals from (1) an order of the Supreme Court, Orange County (Peter C. Patsalos, J.), dated August 23, 1999, which granted the plaintiffs motion for summary judgment, and (2) a judgment of foreclosure and sale of the same court dated February 23, 2000.

Ordered that the appeal from the order is dismissed; and it is further,

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed; and it is further,

[443]*443Ordered that the respondent is awarded one bill of costs.

The appeal from the intermediate order must be dismissed because the right of direct appeal therefrom terminated with the entry of judgment in the action (see, Matter of Aho, 39 NY2d 241, 248). The issues raised on appeal from the order are brought up for review and have been considered on the appeal from the judgment (see, CPLR 5501 [a] [1]).

The plaintiff made a prima facie showing of entitlement to judgment as a matter of law (see, CPLR 3212; Gateway State Bank v Shangri-La Private Club for Women, 113 AD2d 791, affd 67 NY2d 627; Winegrad v New York Univ. Med. Ctr., 64 NY2d 851; Zuckerman v City of New York, 49 NY2d 557, 562). In opposition, the appellant failed to raise any triable issues of fact.

The appellant’s remaining contentions are without merit. Ritter, J. P., Krausman, McGinity and Smith, JJ., concur.

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

Related

Gateway State Bank v. Shangri-La Private Club for Women, Inc.
490 N.E.2d 546 (New York Court of Appeals, 1986)
In re Aho
347 N.E.2d 647 (New York Court of Appeals, 1976)
Zuckerman v. City of New York
404 N.E.2d 718 (New York Court of Appeals, 1980)
Winegrad v. New York University Medical Center
476 N.E.2d 642 (New York Court of Appeals, 1985)
Gateway State Bank v. Shangri-La Private Club for Women, Inc.
113 A.D.2d 791 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1985)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
281 A.D.2d 442, 721 N.Y.S.2d 554, 2001 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 2391, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/bank-of-new-york-v-anthonisen-nyappdiv-2001.