Federal Land Bank v. Azapian

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Federal Land Bank v. Azapian

98 A.D.2d 760, 469 N.Y.S.2d 474, 1983 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 21085

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

DecidedDecember 19, 1983

StatusPublished

Cited by3 cases

This text of 98 A.D.2d 760 (Federal Land Bank v. Azapian) 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

Federal Land Bank v. Azapian, 98 A.D.2d 760, 469 N.Y.S.2d 474, 1983 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 21085 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1983).

Pincite

Opinion

— In an action to foreclose a mortgage, plaintiff appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Westchester County (Rubenfeld, J.), entered March 10,1983, which denied its motion for summary judgment against respondents. Order reversed, on the law, without costs or disbursements, motion granted, and matter remitted to Special Term for entry of an appropriate judgment. The defendants-respondents presented no more than conclusory and contradictory data to support their affirmative defense of estoppel and waiver of the due-on-sale clause in the mortgage (see Northeast Small Business Inv. Corp. v Waccabuc Investors, 90 AD2d 538; cf. Nassau Trust Co. v Montrose Concrete Prods. Corp., 56 NY2d 175). We particularly note that respondents admit that (1) an officer of plaintiff bank informed their counsel that “the bank would require [an income and expense statement to be filled in and returned by the purchaser] in order * * * that the mortgage remain”, (2) plaintiff mailed the form on that day to respondents’ counsel, and (3) the form was never returned. Mangano, J. P., O’Connor, Weinstein and Brown, JJ., concur.

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

— In an action to foreclose a mortgage, plaintiff appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Westchester County (Rubenfeld, J.), entered March 10,1983, which denied its motion for summary judgment against respondents. Order reversed, on the law, without costs or disbursements, motion granted, and matter remitted to Special Term for entry of an appropriate judgment. The defendants-respondents presented no more than conclusory and contradictory data to support their affirmative defense of estoppel and waiver of the due-on-sale clause in the mortgage (see Northeast Small Business Inv. Corp. v Waccabuc Investors, 90 AD2d 538; cf. Nassau Trust Co. v Montrose Concrete Prods. Corp., 56 NY2d 175). We particularly note that respondents admit that (1) an officer of plaintiff bank informed their counsel that “the bank would require [an income and expense statement to be filled in and returned by the purchaser] in order * * * that the mortgage remain”, (2) plaintiff mailed the form on that day to respondents’ counsel, and (3) the form was never returned. Mangano, J. P., O’Connor, Weinstein and Brown, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

98 A.D.2d 760, 469 N.Y.S.2d 474, 1983 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 21085, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/federal-land-bank-v-azapian-nyappdiv-1983.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack