Citibank, N. A. v. Freund

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Citibank, N. A. v. Freund

238 A.D.2d 299, 656 N.Y.S.2d 944, 1997 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3391

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

DecidedApril 7, 1997

StatusPublished

Cited by4 cases

This text of 238 A.D.2d 299 (Citibank, N. A. v. Freund) 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

Citibank, N. A. v. Freund, 238 A.D.2d 299, 656 N.Y.S.2d 944, 1997 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3391 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1997).

Pincite

Opinion

—In an action to foreclose a mortgage, the defendants Gita Freund and Ernest Freund appeal from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Shaw, J.), dated August 30, 1995, as granted that branch of the plaintiff’s motion which was to confirm so much of a Referee’s report as determined that service of process upon the defendant Gita Freund had been proper.

Ordered that the order is affirmed insofar as appealed from, with costs.

Matters of credibility are best determined by the hearing court, which had the opportunity to observe the witnesses (see, Fosella Bldrs. & Gen. Contrs. v Silver, 208 AD2d 525, 526). We are satisfied that the hearing court’s findings of fact support its determination that process was properly served on the defendant Gita Freund. Bracken, J. P., O’Brien, Santucci, Friedmann and Goldstein, 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 defendants Gita Freund and Ernest Freund appeal from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Shaw, J.), dated August 30, 1995, as granted that branch of the plaintiff’s motion which was to confirm so much of a Referee’s report as determined that service of process upon the defendant Gita Freund had been proper.

Ordered that the order is affirmed insofar as appealed from, with costs.

Matters of credibility are best determined by the hearing court, which had the opportunity to observe the witnesses (see, Fosella Bldrs. & Gen. Contrs. v Silver, 208 AD2d 525, 526). We are satisfied that the hearing court’s findings of fact support its determination that process was properly served on the defendant Gita Freund. Bracken, J. P., O’Brien, Santucci, Friedmann and Goldstein, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

238 A.D.2d 299, 656 N.Y.S.2d 944, 1997 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3391, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/citibank-n-a-v-freund-nyappdiv-1997.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack