Chase Manhattan Bank v. Martinez

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Chase Manhattan Bank v. Martinez

292 A.D.2d 166, 738 N.Y.S.2d 205, 2002 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 2266

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

DecidedMarch 5, 2002

StatusPublished

This text of 292 A.D.2d 166 (Chase Manhattan Bank v. Martinez) 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

Chase Manhattan Bank v. Martinez, 292 A.D.2d 166, 738 N.Y.S.2d 205, 2002 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 2266 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2002).

Pincite

Opinion

Order, Supreme Court, Bronx County (Michael DeMarco, J.), entered on or about January 12, 2001, which, to the extent appealed from, denied plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment and related relief, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

Plaintiff’s summary judgment motion in this mortgage foreclosure action was properly denied, since plaintiff mortgage holder failed to meet its burden to demonstrate defendant-respondent mortgagor’s default under the subject mortgage (see, Staten Is. Sav. Bank v Carnival, 39 AD2d 779). Plaintiff, inter alia, failed to produce a statement of account showing defendant-respondent to be in default. Moreover, defendant-respondent’s opposition to plaintiff’s summary judgment motion was sufficient to raise triable questions of fact respecting her payment history and the default alleged against her. Concur — Mazzarelli, J.P., Ellerin, Lemer, Rubin and Marlow, JJ.

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

Order, Supreme Court, Bronx County (Michael DeMarco, J.), entered on or about January 12, 2001, which, to the extent appealed from, denied plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment and related relief, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

Plaintiff’s summary judgment motion in this mortgage foreclosure action was properly denied, since plaintiff mortgage holder failed to meet its burden to demonstrate defendant-respondent mortgagor’s default under the subject mortgage (see, Staten Is. Sav. Bank v Carnival, 39 AD2d 779). Plaintiff, inter alia, failed to produce a statement of account showing defendant-respondent to be in default. Moreover, defendant-respondent’s opposition to plaintiff’s summary judgment motion was sufficient to raise triable questions of fact respecting her payment history and the default alleged against her. Concur — Mazzarelli, J.P., Ellerin, Lemer, Rubin and Marlow, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

292 A.D.2d 166, 738 N.Y.S.2d 205, 2002 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 2266, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/chase-manhattan-bank-v-martinez-nyappdiv-2002.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack