Bankers Trust Co. of California, N. A. v. Tooley

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Bankers Trust Co. of California, N. A. v. Tooley

236 A.D.2d 853, 653 N.Y.S.2d 896, 1997 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 1786

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

DecidedFebruary 7, 1997

StatusPublished

This text of 236 A.D.2d 853 (Bankers Trust Co. of California, N. A. v. Tooley) 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

Bankers Trust Co. of California, N. A. v. Tooley, 236 A.D.2d 853, 653 N.Y.S.2d 896, 1997 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 1786 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1997).

Pincite

Opinion

—Order unanimously reversed on the law with costs and motion denied. Memorandum: Supreme Court erred in granting plaintiffs motion for summary judgment. The record establishes that plaintiff purchased defendants’ loan in or around March 1994 as part of a bulk transfer of loans. It further establishes that the loan was assigned to plaintiff on March 22, 1994, after plaintiff commenced this action. Because plaintiff failed to establish that it had an interest in the mortgage and bond when the action was commenced, it is not entitled to summary judgment (see, Mazzaroppi v 865 E. Tremont Realty Corp., 200 AD2d 390; Fein & Co. v Sealomatic Elees. Corp., 57 Misc 2d 187, 190-191; Carvel Farms Corp. v Bartomeo, 50 Misc 2d 1073, 1076-1077).

We have reviewed defendants’ remaining contentions and conclude that they are without merit. (Appeal from Order of Supreme Court, Jefferson County, Gilbert, J.—Summary Judgment.) Present—Pine, J. P., Lawton, Callahan, Doerr and Boehm, JJ.

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

—Order unanimously reversed on the law with costs and motion denied. Memorandum: Supreme Court erred in granting plaintiffs motion for summary judgment. The record establishes that plaintiff purchased defendants’ loan in or around March 1994 as part of a bulk transfer of loans. It further establishes that the loan was assigned to plaintiff on March 22, 1994, after plaintiff commenced this action. Because plaintiff failed to establish that it had an interest in the mortgage and bond when the action was commenced, it is not entitled to summary judgment (see, Mazzaroppi v 865 E. Tremont Realty Corp., 200 AD2d 390; Fein & Co. v Sealomatic Elees. Corp., 57 Misc 2d 187, 190-191; Carvel Farms Corp. v Bartomeo, 50 Misc 2d 1073, 1076-1077).

We have reviewed defendants’ remaining contentions and conclude that they are without merit. (Appeal from Order of Supreme Court, Jefferson County, Gilbert, J.—Summary Judgment.) Present—Pine, J. P., Lawton, Callahan, Doerr and Boehm, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

236 A.D.2d 853, 653 N.Y.S.2d 896, 1997 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 1786, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/bankers-trust-co-of-california-n-a-v-tooley-nyappdiv-1997.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack