Deutsche Bank Natl. Trust Co. v. Mendick

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Deutsche Bank Natl. Trust Co. v. Mendick

2020 NY Slip Op 262, 179 A.D.3d 774, 113 N.Y.S.3d 895

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

DecidedJanuary 15, 2020

DocketIndex No. 49442/09

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 2020 NY Slip Op 262 (Deutsche Bank Natl. Trust Co. v. Mendick) 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. Mendick, 2020 NY Slip Op 262, 179 A.D.3d 774, 113 N.Y.S.3d 895 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2020).

Pincite

Opinion

Deutsche Bank Natl. Trust Co. v Mendick (2020 NY Slip Op 00262)

Deutsche Bank Natl. Trust Co. v Mendick

2020 NY Slip Op 00262

Decided on January 15, 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 January 15, 2020 SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK Appellate Division, Second Judicial Department
ALAN D. SCHEINKMAN, P.J.
SHERI S. ROMAN
COLLEEN D. DUFFY
BETSY BARROS, JJ.

2017-09371
(Index No. 49442/09)

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

v

Jason Mendick, respondent, et al., defendants.

Duane Morris LLP, New York, NY (Brett L. Messinger of counsel), for appellant.

Fred M. Schwartz, Smithtown, NY, for respondent.

DECISION & ORDER

In an action to foreclose a mortgage, the plaintiff appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Suffolk County (C. Randall Hinrichs, J.), dated June 27, 2017. The order, insofar as appealed from, granted that branch of the defendant Jason Mendick's cross motion which was to dismiss the complaint insofar as asserted against him.

ORDERED that the order is reversed insofar as appealed from, on the law, with costs, and that branch of the defendant Jason Mendick's cross motion which was to dismiss the complaint insofar as asserted against him is denied.

The bare denial by the defendant Jason Mendick of receipt of a notice of default, required to be served by the terms of the mortgage, and a notice required by RPAPL 1304 is insufficient to establish his prima facie entitlement to judgment as matter of law dismissing the complaint insofar as asserted against him (see Citibank, N.A. v Conti-Scheurer, 172 AD3d 17, 23-24).

SCHEINKMAN, P.J., ROMAN, DUFFY 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