Fennell v. Kelsey

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Fennell v. Kelsey

257 A.D.2d 596, 683 N.Y.S.2d 865, 1999 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 316

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

DecidedJanuary 19, 1999

StatusPublished

This text of 257 A.D.2d 596 (Fennell v. Kelsey) 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

Fennell v. Kelsey, 257 A.D.2d 596, 683 N.Y.S.2d 865, 1999 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 316 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1999).

Pincite

Opinion

—In an action to foreclose a mortgage, the defendant Mary Anne Kelsey appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Westchester County (Rudolph, J.), entered November 3, 1997, which, inter alia, granted the plaintiffs’ motion for summary judgment.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

The Supreme Court correctly concluded that the plaintiffs established their entitlement to summary judgment and that the appellant’s alleged defenses were insufficient to give rise to an issue of fact (see, Bank of Smithtown v Bogliano, 254 AD2d 319; Wasserman v Harriman, 234 AD2d 596; FGH Realty Credit Corp. v VRD Realty Corp., 231 AD2d 489; Crest/Good Mfg. Co. v Baumann, 160 AD2d 831; Johnson v Gaughan, 128 AD2d 756).

The appellant’s remaining contentions are without merit. Santucci, J. P., Altman, Friedmann and McGinity, 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, the defendant Mary Anne Kelsey appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Westchester County (Rudolph, J.), entered November 3, 1997, which, inter alia, granted the plaintiffs’ motion for summary judgment.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

The Supreme Court correctly concluded that the plaintiffs established their entitlement to summary judgment and that the appellant’s alleged defenses were insufficient to give rise to an issue of fact (see, Bank of Smithtown v Bogliano, 254 AD2d 319; Wasserman v Harriman, 234 AD2d 596; FGH Realty Credit Corp. v VRD Realty Corp., 231 AD2d 489; Crest/Good Mfg. Co. v Baumann, 160 AD2d 831; Johnson v Gaughan, 128 AD2d 756).

The appellant’s remaining contentions are without merit. Santucci, J. P., Altman, Friedmann and McGinity, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

257 A.D.2d 596, 683 N.Y.S.2d 865, 1999 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 316, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/fennell-v-kelsey-nyappdiv-1999.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack