Citibank v. Pierre

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Citibank v. Pierre

213 A.D.2d 443, 624 N.Y.S.2d 38, 1995 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 2704

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

DecidedMarch 13, 1995

StatusPublished

Cited by6 cases

This text of 213 A.D.2d 443 (Citibank v. Pierre) 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 v. Pierre, 213 A.D.2d 443, 624 N.Y.S.2d 38, 1995 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 2704 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1995).

Pincite

Opinion

—In an action to foreclose a mortgage, the defendants Moliere and Flerina Pierre appeal from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Nassau County (McCarty, J.), entered January 3, 1994, which, upon an order of the same court entered May 10, 1993, granting the plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment, and a decision of the same court dated December 1, 1993, deciding the plaintiff’s motion for a judgment of foreclosure and sale, directed foreclosure and sale. The defendants’ notice of appeal from the order entered May 10, 1993, is deemed a premature notice of appeal from the judgment (see, CPLR 5520 [c]).

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed, with costs.

The plaintiff established its entitlement to summary judgment in this action to foreclose on the appellants’ mortgage by offering proof of the mortgage and a default in payment (see, Dime Sav. Bank v Rand, 204 AD2d 261; European Am. Bank v Strab Constr. Corp., 196 AD2d 479). It was incumbent upon the appellants to establish, by proof in admissible form, the existence of a triable issue of fact (see, Alvarez v Prospect Hosp., 68 NY2d 320; Mlcoch v Smith, 173 AD2d 443). They failed to do so. Therefore, summary judgment was properly granted.

The appellants’ remaining contentions are without merit. Bracken, J. P., Pizzuto, Altman and Krausman, 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 Moliere and Flerina Pierre appeal from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Nassau County (McCarty, J.), entered January 3, 1994, which, upon an order of the same court entered May 10, 1993, granting the plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment, and a decision of the same court dated December 1, 1993, deciding the plaintiff’s motion for a judgment of foreclosure and sale, directed foreclosure and sale. The defendants’ notice of appeal from the order entered May 10, 1993, is deemed a premature notice of appeal from the judgment (see, CPLR 5520 [c]).

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed, with costs.

The plaintiff established its entitlement to summary judgment in this action to foreclose on the appellants’ mortgage by offering proof of the mortgage and a default in payment (see, Dime Sav. Bank v Rand, 204 AD2d 261; European Am. Bank v Strab Constr. Corp., 196 AD2d 479). It was incumbent upon the appellants to establish, by proof in admissible form, the existence of a triable issue of fact (see, Alvarez v Prospect Hosp., 68 NY2d 320; Mlcoch v Smith, 173 AD2d 443). They failed to do so. Therefore, summary judgment was properly granted.

The appellants’ remaining contentions are without merit. Bracken, J. P., Pizzuto, Altman and Krausman, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

213 A.D.2d 443, 624 N.Y.S.2d 38, 1995 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 2704, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/citibank-v-pierre-nyappdiv-1995.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack