Chemical Bank v. Bowers

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Chemical Bank v. Bowers

228 A.D.2d 407, 643 N.Y.2d 653, 643 N.Y.S.2d 653, 1996 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 6260

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

DecidedJune 3, 1996

StatusPublished

Cited by10 cases

This text of 228 A.D.2d 407 (Chemical Bank v. Bowers) 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

Chemical Bank v. Bowers, 228 A.D.2d 407, 643 N.Y.2d 653, 643 N.Y.S.2d 653, 1996 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 6260 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1996).

Pincite

Opinion

[408]*408The plaintiff, an assignee of the mortgage which is the subject of this action, established a prima facie case by submitting proof of the mortgage and note and the respondent’s default in payment (see, North Fork Bank v Hamptons Mist Mgt. Corp., 225 AD2d 596). The respondent failed to come forward with any evidence to support her defenses and counterclaims. While the respondent may have been defrauded by the home improvement contractor to whom she transferred a portion of the loan proceeds, that is not a defense to this foreclosure action. There is no evidence that the original mortgagee had any relationship with the contractor or participated in or had knowledge of the contractor’s alleged fraudulent conduct (see, First Family Mtge. Corp. v Lubliner, 113 AD2d 868). In addition, contrary to the conclusion of the Supreme Court, the attorney representing the mortgagee did not owe any duty to the respondent at the closing (see, Banque Nationale de Paris v 1567 Broadway Ownership Assocs., 214 AD2d 359). Consequently, the court erred in denying the plaintiff’s motion. Thompson, J. P., Altman, Goldstein and Mc-Ginity, JJ., concur.

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

[408]*408The plaintiff, an assignee of the mortgage which is the subject of this action, established a prima facie case by submitting proof of the mortgage and note and the respondent’s default in payment (see, North Fork Bank v Hamptons Mist Mgt. Corp., 225 AD2d 596). The respondent failed to come forward with any evidence to support her defenses and counterclaims. While the respondent may have been defrauded by the home improvement contractor to whom she transferred a portion of the loan proceeds, that is not a defense to this foreclosure action. There is no evidence that the original mortgagee had any relationship with the contractor or participated in or had knowledge of the contractor’s alleged fraudulent conduct (see, First Family Mtge. Corp. v Lubliner, 113 AD2d 868). In addition, contrary to the conclusion of the Supreme Court, the attorney representing the mortgagee did not owe any duty to the respondent at the closing (see, Banque Nationale de Paris v 1567 Broadway Ownership Assocs., 214 AD2d 359). Consequently, the court erred in denying the plaintiff’s motion. Thompson, J. P., Altman, Goldstein and Mc-Ginity, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

228 A.D.2d 407, 643 N.Y.2d 653, 643 N.Y.S.2d 653, 1996 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 6260, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/chemical-bank-v-bowers-nyappdiv-1996.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack