Dime Savings Bank v. Chainani

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Dime Savings Bank v. Chainani

205 A.D.2d 354, 613 N.Y.S.2d 594, 1994 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 6225

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

DecidedJune 14, 1994

StatusPublished

This text of 205 A.D.2d 354 (Dime Savings Bank v. Chainani) 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

Dime Savings Bank v. Chainani, 205 A.D.2d 354, 613 N.Y.S.2d 594, 1994 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 6225 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1994).

Pincite

Opinion

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Seymour Schwartz, J.), entered June 2, 1993, which granted defendant mortgagor’s motion to reargue a prior order, same court and Justice, entered December 29, 1992, inter alia, denying defendant’s motion for summary judgment and, upon a search of the record, granting plaintiff mortgagee summary judgment dismissing defendant’s "counterclaim”, and, upon reargument, granted plaintiff summary judgment dismissing all of defendant’s counterclaims, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

Defendant’s counterclaims invoking various State and Federal statutory and constitutional provisions and alleging that plaintiff bank discriminated against her on the basis of sex [355]*355and marital status in refusing to renegotiate the terms of her mortgage were properly dismissed, no discriminatory motive being inferable from defendant’s claim that she "was informed that she would receive a greatly reduced interest rate if she could show a greater income than her application reflected” and "made to understand by plaintiff that if she were able to show a joint income, i.e. that she was married, she would receive the workout” (see, McDonnell Douglas Corp. v Green, 411 US 792, 802). Concur—Murphy, P. J., Wallach, Ross, Rubin and Williams, JJ.

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

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Seymour Schwartz, J.), entered June 2, 1993, which granted defendant mortgagor’s motion to reargue a prior order, same court and Justice, entered December 29, 1992, inter alia, denying defendant’s motion for summary judgment and, upon a search of the record, granting plaintiff mortgagee summary judgment dismissing defendant’s "counterclaim”, and, upon reargument, granted plaintiff summary judgment dismissing all of defendant’s counterclaims, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

Defendant’s counterclaims invoking various State and Federal statutory and constitutional provisions and alleging that plaintiff bank discriminated against her on the basis of sex [355]*355and marital status in refusing to renegotiate the terms of her mortgage were properly dismissed, no discriminatory motive being inferable from defendant’s claim that she "was informed that she would receive a greatly reduced interest rate if she could show a greater income than her application reflected” and "made to understand by plaintiff that if she were able to show a joint income, i.e. that she was married, she would receive the workout” (see, McDonnell Douglas Corp. v Green, 411 US 792, 802). Concur—Murphy, P. J., Wallach, Ross, Rubin and Williams, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

205 A.D.2d 354, 613 N.Y.S.2d 594, 1994 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 6225, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/dime-savings-bank-v-chainani-nyappdiv-1994.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack