Bratin v. Flushing Savings Bank

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Bratin v. Flushing Savings Bank

259 A.D.2d 510, 687 N.Y.S.2d 380, 1999 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 2204

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

DecidedMarch 8, 1999

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 259 A.D.2d 510 (Bratin v. Flushing Savings Bank) 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

Bratin v. Flushing Savings Bank, 259 A.D.2d 510, 687 N.Y.S.2d 380, 1999 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 2204 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1999).

Pincite

Opinion

In an action to, inter alia, recover damages for violation of Real Property Law § 275, the plaintiff appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Posner, J.), dated January 5, 1998, which granted the defendant’s motion to dismiss the complaint.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

Contrary to the plaintiffs’ contention, the provision in their mortgage rider with the defendant requiring them to pay a reasonable attorney’s fee for the preparation of a satisfaction of mortgage is not a violation of Real Property Law § 275. In addition, we find no conduct on the part of the defendant which can be considered a deceptive business practice in violation of General Business Law § 349 et seq. Mangano, P. J., Santucci, Krausman and Florio, JJ., concur.

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

In an action to, inter alia, recover damages for violation of Real Property Law § 275, the plaintiff appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Posner, J.), dated January 5, 1998, which granted the defendant’s motion to dismiss the complaint.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

Contrary to the plaintiffs’ contention, the provision in their mortgage rider with the defendant requiring them to pay a reasonable attorney’s fee for the preparation of a satisfaction of mortgage is not a violation of Real Property Law § 275. In addition, we find no conduct on the part of the defendant which can be considered a deceptive business practice in violation of General Business Law § 349 et seq. Mangano, P. J., Santucci, Krausman and Florio, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

259 A.D.2d 510, 687 N.Y.S.2d 380, 1999 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 2204, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/bratin-v-flushing-savings-bank-nyappdiv-1999.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack