Capital Investment Co. v. Cuffee

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Capital Investment Co. v. Cuffee

256 A.D.2d 295, 681 N.Y.S.2d 760, 1998 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 13192

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York·Decided December 7, 1998·Published·Cited by 1 cases

Opinion

—In an action to foreclose a mortgage,the defendant James E. Cuffee appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Jackson, J.), dated November 6, 1997, which granted the plaintiffs motion for summary judgment.

[296] Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

The appellant does not contest that he defaulted in the repayment of the subject loan. Moreover, the plaintiff presented evidentiary proof in admissible form which established its cause of action for foreclosure against the appellant, based upon the appellant’s indebtedness of $175,630.38 plus interest, various taxes, and expenses (see, Zuckerman v City of New York, 49 NY2d 557, 559). The appellant’s answer to the complaint and the affidavit submitted in opposition to the motion contained unsubstantiated allegations (see, Rukaj v Roth, 237 AD2d 503), and failed to demonstrate the existence of a factual issue requiring a trial of the action (see, Zuckerman v City of New York, supra). O’Brien, J. P., Florio, McGinity and Luciano, JJ., concur.

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

—In an action to foreclose a mortgage,the defendant James E. Cuffee appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Jackson, J.), dated November 6, 1997, which granted the plaintiffs motion for summary judgment.

[296] Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

The appellant does not contest that he defaulted in the repayment of the subject loan. Moreover, the plaintiff presented evidentiary proof in admissible form which established its cause of action for foreclosure against the appellant, based upon the appellant’s indebtedness of $175,630.38 plus interest, various taxes, and expenses (see, Zuckerman v City of New York, 49 NY2d 557, 559). The appellant’s answer to the complaint and the affidavit submitted in opposition to the motion contained unsubstantiated allegations (see, Rukaj v Roth, 237 AD2d 503), and failed to demonstrate the existence of a factual issue requiring a trial of the action (see, Zuckerman v City of New York, supra). O’Brien, J. P., Florio, McGinity and Luciano, JJ., concur.

Capital Investment Co. v. Cuffee, 256 A.D.2d 295, 681 N.Y.S.2d 760, 1998 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 13192 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1998).

Pincite

256 A.D.2d 295 (Capital Investment Co. v. Cuffee) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related