Citibank, N. A. v. Souto Geffen Co.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Citibank, N. A. v. Souto Geffen Co.

231 A.D.2d 466, 647 N.Y.S.2d 467

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

DecidedSeptember 24, 1996

StatusPublished

This text of 231 A.D.2d 466 (Citibank, N. A. v. Souto Geffen Co.) 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. Souto Geffen Co., 231 A.D.2d 466, 647 N.Y.S.2d 467 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1996).

Pincite

Opinion

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Alice Schlesinger, J.), entered January 6, 1994, which, inter alia, granted plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment foreclosure and dismissed defendants’ counterclaims, unanimously affirmed, with costs.

Plaintiff established a prima facie case by showing the existence of the note and defendants’ default in payment (see, Greater N. Y. Sav. Bank v 2120 Realty, 202 AD2d 248). Defendants do not deny that they have not made payments of interest or principal, and their unsupported conclusory allegations of tortious and/or fraudulent conduct by the bank are insufficient to demonstrate a question of fact sufficient to defeat plaintiff’s right to recovery (see, Bank Leumi Trust Co. v Samalot/ Edge Assocs., 202 AD2d 282).

We have considered defendants’ other arguments and find them to be without merit. Concur—Sullivan, J. P., Rosenberger, Kupferman, Tom and Mazzarelli, JJ.

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

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Alice Schlesinger, J.), entered January 6, 1994, which, inter alia, granted plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment foreclosure and dismissed defendants’ counterclaims, unanimously affirmed, with costs.

Plaintiff established a prima facie case by showing the existence of the note and defendants’ default in payment (see, Greater N. Y. Sav. Bank v 2120 Realty, 202 AD2d 248). Defendants do not deny that they have not made payments of interest or principal, and their unsupported conclusory allegations of tortious and/or fraudulent conduct by the bank are insufficient to demonstrate a question of fact sufficient to defeat plaintiff’s right to recovery (see, Bank Leumi Trust Co. v Samalot/ Edge Assocs., 202 AD2d 282).

We have considered defendants’ other arguments and find them to be without merit. Concur—Sullivan, J. P., Rosenberger, Kupferman, Tom and Mazzarelli, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

231 A.D.2d 466, 647 N.Y.S.2d 467, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/citibank-n-a-v-souto-geffen-co-nyappdiv-1996.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack