Banque Arabe Et Internationale D'Investissement v. One Times Square Associates Limited Partnership

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Banque Arabe Et Internationale D'Investissement v. One Times Square Associates Limited Partnership

193 A.D.2d 387, 597 N.Y.S.2d 48, 1993 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4512

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York·Decided May 4, 1993·Published·Cited by 3 cases

Opinion

—Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Karla Moskowitz, J.), entered on or about August 20, 1992, which denied defendant-appellant’s cross motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint, and order, same court and Justice, entered October 29, 1992, which, inter alia, again denied such cross motion and granted plaintiff’s cross motion for summary judgment, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

The instant mortgage foreclosure action is authorized notwithstanding that plaintiff, a foreign banking corporation that maintains a representative office in New York (Banking Law §§ 221-a, 221-b [3]), although properly registered is unlicensed (Banking Law § 200 [4]; Commonwealth Bank & Trust Co. v Tioga Mills, 78 AD2d 953; Sky lake State Bank v Solar Heat & Insulation, 148 Misc 2d 32). Nor should plaintiff be estopped from maintaining the action against defendant, a lessee whose [388] rights were expressly subordinated to the mortgage under foreclosure, absent a showing of any misrepresentation or other affirmative wrongdoing by plaintiff.

Moreover, defendant’s request that plaintiff provide it with a non-disturbance agreement as a means of avoiding the subordination clause, first made two months after the foreclosure action had commenced, shows that the required element of reliance upon any claimed misrepresentation was lacking. Concur—Milonas, J. P., Rosenberger, Ellerin and Kupferman, JJ.

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

—Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Karla Moskowitz, J.), entered on or about August 20, 1992, which denied defendant-appellant’s cross motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint, and order, same court and Justice, entered October 29, 1992, which, inter alia, again denied such cross motion and granted plaintiff’s cross motion for summary judgment, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

The instant mortgage foreclosure action is authorized notwithstanding that plaintiff, a foreign banking corporation that maintains a representative office in New York (Banking Law §§ 221-a, 221-b [3]), although properly registered is unlicensed (Banking Law § 200 [4]; Commonwealth Bank & Trust Co. v Tioga Mills, 78 AD2d 953; Sky lake State Bank v Solar Heat & Insulation, 148 Misc 2d 32). Nor should plaintiff be estopped from maintaining the action against defendant, a lessee whose [388] rights were expressly subordinated to the mortgage under foreclosure, absent a showing of any misrepresentation or other affirmative wrongdoing by plaintiff.

Moreover, defendant’s request that plaintiff provide it with a non-disturbance agreement as a means of avoiding the subordination clause, first made two months after the foreclosure action had commenced, shows that the required element of reliance upon any claimed misrepresentation was lacking. Concur—Milonas, J. P., Rosenberger, Ellerin and Kupferman, JJ.

Banque Arabe Et Internationale D'Investissement v. One Times Square Associates Limited Partnership, 193 A.D.2d 387, 597 N.Y.S.2d 48, 1993 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4512 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1993).

Pincite

193 A.D.2d 387 (Banque Arabe Et Internationale D'Investissement v. One Times Square Associates Limited Partnership) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related