City Mortgage Banking, Ltd. v. Commonwealth Land Title Insurance

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

City Mortgage Banking, Ltd. v. Commonwealth Land Title Insurance

300 A.D.2d 614, 751 N.Y.S.2d 426, 2002 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 13356

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York·Decided December 30, 2002·Published

Opinion

—In an action, inter alia, to recover damages for breach of contract, the plaintiff appeals, as limited by its brief, from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Garry, J.), dated October 9, 2001, as granted that branch of the defendant’s motion which was, in effect, for summary judgment dismissing the complaint.

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

The defendant established its entitlement to judgment as a matter of law, thereby shifting the burden to the plaintiff to submit admissible evidence establishing a triable issue of fact (see Winegrad v New York Univ. Med. Ctr., 64 NY2d 851). In opposition to the defendant’s motion, the plaintiff failed to come forward with evidence sufficient to raise a triable issue of fact as to whether it incurred any actual loss as a result of the defendant’s failure to promptly record the plaintiff’s mortgage (see Winegrad v New York Univ. Med. Ctr., supra; Grunberger v Iseson, 75 AD2d 329). Altman, J.P., S. Miller, Adams and Mastro, JJ., concur.

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

—In an action, inter alia, to recover damages for breach of contract, the plaintiff appeals, as limited by its brief, from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Garry, J.), dated October 9, 2001, as granted that branch of the defendant’s motion which was, in effect, for summary judgment dismissing the complaint.

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

The defendant established its entitlement to judgment as a matter of law, thereby shifting the burden to the plaintiff to submit admissible evidence establishing a triable issue of fact (see Winegrad v New York Univ. Med. Ctr., 64 NY2d 851). In opposition to the defendant’s motion, the plaintiff failed to come forward with evidence sufficient to raise a triable issue of fact as to whether it incurred any actual loss as a result of the defendant’s failure to promptly record the plaintiff’s mortgage (see Winegrad v New York Univ. Med. Ctr., supra; Grunberger v Iseson, 75 AD2d 329). Altman, J.P., S. Miller, Adams and Mastro, JJ., concur.

City Mortgage Banking, Ltd. v. Commonwealth Land Title Insurance, 300 A.D.2d 614, 751 N.Y.S.2d 426, 2002 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 13356 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2002).

Pincite

300 A.D.2d 614 (City Mortgage Banking, Ltd. v. Commonwealth Land Title Insurance) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related