Fineo v. Chemical Bank

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Fineo v. Chemical Bank

198 A.D.2d 262, 603 N.Y.S.2d 555, 1993 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 10435

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

DecidedNovember 8, 1993

StatusPublished

This text of 198 A.D.2d 262 (Fineo v. Chemical Bank) 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

Fineo v. Chemical Bank, 198 A.D.2d 262, 603 N.Y.S.2d 555, 1993 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 10435 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1993).

Pincite

Opinion

—In an action, inter alia, to foreclose a mortgage, the plaintiffs appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Nassau County (Morrison, J.), entered March 1, 1991, which granted the defendant Chemical Bank’s motion to dismiss the plaintiffs’ second, third, and fourth causes of action, and denied, in part, the plaintiffs’ cross motion for leave to serve an amended complaint.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

The Supreme Court properly dismissed the plaintiffs’ causes of action seeking to have the subordination agreement declared invalid and rescinded. Neither Chemical Bank nor its assignor were under a duty to the plaintiffs to ensure that the borrower utilized the loan proceeds to improve the property, and the plaintiffs’ allegations of bad faith on the part of Chemical Bank were insufficient (see, Brooklyn Trust Co. v Fairfield Gardens, 260 NY 16, 24-25; Woodside Sav. & Loan Assn. v Minisink Homes, 51 AD2d 593, 594). In addition, the court did not improvidently exercise its discretion in denying, in part, the plaintiffs’ cross motion for leave to amend the complaint, since the plaintiffs’ allegations of mutual mistake were clearly without merit (see, Chimart Assocs. v Paul, 66 NY2d 570, 573; DeGuire v DeGuire, 125 AD2d 360). Thompson, J. P., Sullivan, Ritter and Joy, JJ., concur.

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

—In an action, inter alia, to foreclose a mortgage, the plaintiffs appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Nassau County (Morrison, J.), entered March 1, 1991, which granted the defendant Chemical Bank’s motion to dismiss the plaintiffs’ second, third, and fourth causes of action, and denied, in part, the plaintiffs’ cross motion for leave to serve an amended complaint.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

The Supreme Court properly dismissed the plaintiffs’ causes of action seeking to have the subordination agreement declared invalid and rescinded. Neither Chemical Bank nor its assignor were under a duty to the plaintiffs to ensure that the borrower utilized the loan proceeds to improve the property, and the plaintiffs’ allegations of bad faith on the part of Chemical Bank were insufficient (see, Brooklyn Trust Co. v Fairfield Gardens, 260 NY 16, 24-25; Woodside Sav. & Loan Assn. v Minisink Homes, 51 AD2d 593, 594). In addition, the court did not improvidently exercise its discretion in denying, in part, the plaintiffs’ cross motion for leave to amend the complaint, since the plaintiffs’ allegations of mutual mistake were clearly without merit (see, Chimart Assocs. v Paul, 66 NY2d 570, 573; DeGuire v DeGuire, 125 AD2d 360). Thompson, J. P., Sullivan, Ritter and Joy, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

198 A.D.2d 262, 603 N.Y.S.2d 555, 1993 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 10435, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/fineo-v-chemical-bank-nyappdiv-1993.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack