Fairmont Capital, LLC v. Laniado

116 A.D.3d 998, 985 N.Y.S.2d 254
CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York
DecidedApril 30, 2014
StatusPublished
Cited by8 cases

This text of 116 A.D.3d 998 (Fairmont Capital, LLC v. Laniado) 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
Fairmont Capital, LLC v. Laniado, 116 A.D.3d 998, 985 N.Y.S.2d 254 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2014).

Opinion

In an action to foreclose a mortgage, the defendant Salomao Laniado appeals, as limited by his brief, from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Jacobson, J.), dated June 13, 2012, as granted those branches of the plaintiffs motion which were for summary judgment on the complaint insofar as asserted against him and for the appointment of a referee to compute the amount of money that is due to the plaintiff, and, in effect, to strike the affirmative defenses in his answer.

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

The Supreme Court properly granted those branches of the plaintiff’s motion which were for summary judgment on the complaint insofar as asserted against the appellant and for the appointment of a referee to compute the amount of money that is due to it, and, in effect, to strike the affirmative defenses in the appellant’s answer. The plaintiff established its prima facie entitlement to judgment as a matter of law by producing a mortgage, an unpaid note, and evidence of default (see Mendel Group, Inc. v Prince, 114 AD3d 732 [2014]; Independence Bank v Valentine, 113 AD3d 62, 64 [2013]; Deutsche Bank Natl. Trust Co. v Whalen, 107 AD3d 931 [2013]), and by demonstrating that the affirmative defenses were without merit (see Mendel Group, [999]*999Inc. v Prince, 114 AD3d 732 [2014]; Deutsche Bank Natl. Trust Co. v Whalen, 107 AD3d at 932-933). In opposition, the appellant failed to raise a triable issue of fact. The notice requirements of RPAPL 1304 were inapplicable to this action, since the subject loan did not satisfy the statutory definition of a “home loan,” as that term was defined when this action was commenced (see L 2008, ch 472, § 2; cf. Mendel Group, Inc. v Prince, 114 AD3d 732 [2014]).

The parties’ remaining contentions either need not be reached in light of our determination, are without merit, or are not properly before this Court. Dickerson, J.E, Hall, Roman and Cohen, JJ., concur.

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

Related

AJ Partners Lending, LLC v. Chen & Jiang Enter. LLC
2024 NY Slip Op 34357(U) (New York Supreme Court, Kings County, 2024)
Bayview Loan Servicing, LLC v. Akande
2017 NY Slip Op 6951 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2017)
JP Morgan Chase Bank, National Ass'n v. Venture
148 A.D.3d 1269 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2017)
Pennymac, Corp. v. DiPrima
54 Misc. 3d 990 (New York Supreme Court, 2016)
Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. v. Burke
52 Misc. 3d 944 (New York Supreme Court, 2016)
Citimortgage, Inc. v. Simon
137 A.D.3d 1190 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2016)
Prompt Mortgage Providers of North America, LLC v. Singh
132 A.D.3d 833 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2015)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
116 A.D.3d 998, 985 N.Y.S.2d 254, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/fairmont-capital-llc-v-laniado-nyappdiv-2014.