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

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

DecidedDecember 7, 1998

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 256 A.D.2d 295 (Capital Investment Co. v. Cuffee) 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

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

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]*296Ordered 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]*296Ordered 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.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

256 A.D.2d 295, 681 N.Y.S.2d 760, 1998 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 13192, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/capital-investment-co-v-cuffee-nyappdiv-1998.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack