Friesch-Groningsche Hypotheekbank Realty Credit Corp. v. Lion Properties

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Friesch-Groningsche Hypotheekbank Realty Credit Corp. v. Lion Properties

211 A.D.2d 696, 621 N.Y.S.2d 898

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

DecidedJanuary 23, 1995

StatusPublished

This text of 211 A.D.2d 696 (Friesch-Groningsche Hypotheekbank Realty Credit Corp. v. Lion Properties) 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

Friesch-Groningsche Hypotheekbank Realty Credit Corp. v. Lion Properties, 211 A.D.2d 696, 621 N.Y.S.2d 898 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1995).

Pincite

Opinion

In an action to foreclose a mortgage, the defendant Lion Properties appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Nassau County (Molloy, J.), entered July 16, 1993, which granted the plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

The plaintiff established its prima facie entitlement to summary judgment by offering proof of the existence of a [697]*697mortgage and the defendant’s default thereon. Thus, upon the defendant’s failure to establish, by admissible evidence, that a triable issue of fact existed, the Supreme Court properly granted the plaintiffs motion (see, Prudential Ins. Co. v Hamilton Plaza Co., 209 AD2d 498). Miller, J. P., Joy, Krausman and Goldstein, 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 Lion Properties appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Nassau County (Molloy, J.), entered July 16, 1993, which granted the plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

The plaintiff established its prima facie entitlement to summary judgment by offering proof of the existence of a [697]*697mortgage and the defendant’s default thereon. Thus, upon the defendant’s failure to establish, by admissible evidence, that a triable issue of fact existed, the Supreme Court properly granted the plaintiffs motion (see, Prudential Ins. Co. v Hamilton Plaza Co., 209 AD2d 498). Miller, J. P., Joy, Krausman and Goldstein, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

211 A.D.2d 696, 621 N.Y.S.2d 898, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/friesch-groningsche-hypotheekbank-realty-credit-corp-v-lion-properties-nyappdiv-1995.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack