Flintkote Co. v. Bert Bar Holding Corp.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Flintkote Co. v. Bert Bar Holding Corp.

114 A.D.2d 400, 494 N.Y.S.2d 43, 1985 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 53080

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

DecidedOctober 15, 1985

StatusPublished

Cited by10 cases

This text of 114 A.D.2d 400 (Flintkote Co. v. Bert Bar Holding Corp.) 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

Flintkote Co. v. Bert Bar Holding Corp., 114 A.D.2d 400, 494 N.Y.S.2d 43, 1985 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 53080 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1985).

Pincite

Opinion

—In an action to foreclose a mortgage, defendant Bert Bar Holding Corp. appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Rockland County (Ruskin, J.), dated February 14, 1984, which granted plaintiffs motion for summary judgment as against it.

Order affirmed, with costs.

The appellant’s affidavits opposing the motion for summary judgment set forth mere conclusions concerning alleged oral representations to forego foreclosure, rather than a statement of detailed factual allegations which is required to defeat such a motion (see, Nassau Trust Co. v Montrose Concrete Prods. Corp., 56 NY2d 175; New York State Urban Dev. Corp. v Garvey Brownstone Houses, 98 AD2d 767, 771; Federal Land Bank v Azapian, 98 AD2d 760). We find appellant’s bare and unsubstantiated assertion that plaintiff waived indefinitely its right pursuant to the mortgage to foreclose on the property insufficient to create an issue of fact which would warrant a trial. Brown, J. P., Rubin, Lawrence and Kooper, 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, defendant Bert Bar Holding Corp. appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Rockland County (Ruskin, J.), dated February 14, 1984, which granted plaintiffs motion for summary judgment as against it.

Order affirmed, with costs.

The appellant’s affidavits opposing the motion for summary judgment set forth mere conclusions concerning alleged oral representations to forego foreclosure, rather than a statement of detailed factual allegations which is required to defeat such a motion (see, Nassau Trust Co. v Montrose Concrete Prods. Corp., 56 NY2d 175; New York State Urban Dev. Corp. v Garvey Brownstone Houses, 98 AD2d 767, 771; Federal Land Bank v Azapian, 98 AD2d 760). We find appellant’s bare and unsubstantiated assertion that plaintiff waived indefinitely its right pursuant to the mortgage to foreclose on the property insufficient to create an issue of fact which would warrant a trial. Brown, J. P., Rubin, Lawrence and Kooper, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

114 A.D.2d 400, 494 N.Y.S.2d 43, 1985 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 53080, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/flintkote-co-v-bert-bar-holding-corp-nyappdiv-1985.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack