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

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

DecidedDecember 30, 2002

StatusPublished

This text of 300 A.D.2d 614 (City Mortgage Banking, Ltd. v. Commonwealth Land Title Insurance) 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

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

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.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

300 A.D.2d 614, 751 N.Y.S.2d 426, 2002 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 13356, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/city-mortgage-banking-ltd-v-commonwealth-land-title-insurance-nyappdiv-2002.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack