Deutsche Bank Natl. Trust Co. v. Clark

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Deutsche Bank Natl. Trust Co. v. Clark

2020 NY Slip Op 06101, 131 N.Y.S.3d 571, 187 A.D.3d 1142

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

DecidedOctober 28, 2020

DocketIndex No. 19199/11

StatusPublished

This text of 2020 NY Slip Op 06101 (Deutsche Bank Natl. Trust Co. v. Clark) 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

Deutsche Bank Natl. Trust Co. v. Clark, 2020 NY Slip Op 06101, 131 N.Y.S.3d 571, 187 A.D.3d 1142 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2020).

Pincite

Opinion

Deutsche Bank Natl. Trust Co. v Clark (2020 NY Slip Op 06101)

Deutsche Bank Natl. Trust Co. v Clark

2020 NY Slip Op 06101

Decided on October 28, 2020

Appellate Division, Second Department

Published by New York State Law Reporting Bureau pursuant to Judiciary Law § 431.

This opinion is uncorrected and subject to revision before publication in the Official Reports.

Decided on October 28, 2020 SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK Appellate Division, Second Judicial Department
MARK C. DILLON, J.P.
JEFFREY A. COHEN
ROBERT J. MILLER
BETSY BARROS, JJ.

2018-11283
(Index No. 19199/11)

[*1]Deutsche Bank National Trust Company, etc., respondent,

v

Carrie Clark, et al., defendants, Peter Strugatz, appellant.

Ronald D. Weiss, P.C., Melville, NY, for appellant.

Shapiro DiCarlo & Barak, LLC, Rochester, NY (Virginia C. Grapensteter of counsel), for respondent.

DECISION & ORDER

In an action to foreclose a mortgage, the defendant Peter Strugatz appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Suffolk County (C. Randall Hinrichs, J.), dated May 3, 2018. The order, insofar as appealed from, denied that defendant's cross motion to dismiss the complaint insofar as asserted against him for failure to comply with RPAPL 1304.

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

We affirm. The defendant's "simple denial of receipt [of a RPAPL 1304 notice], without more, is insufficient to establish prima facie entitlement to judgment as a matter of law dismissing the complaint for failure to comply with the requirements of RPAPL 1304" (Citibank, N.A. v Conti-Scheurer, 172 AD3d 17, 24; see PennyMac Corp. v Kahn, 178 AD3d 1064, 1066; LNV Corp. v Sofer, 171 AD3d 1033, 1038).

DILLON, J.P., COHEN, MILLER and BARROS, JJ., concur.

ENTER:

Aprilanne Agostino

Clerk of the Court

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